Well, you're right, Ogg Vorbis streaming is cool, but unfortunately it won't work for the BBC in the long run, for reasons you've put in your post.
The problem is that you had to install something to your base system in order to listen to the stream. There are millions (yes, millions) of users who don't want to have to install anything else, they just want things to work straight of the box. These are exactly the sort of people BBC doesn't want calling their tech support. Any costs saved by avoiding Microsoft license fees get eaten up by the phone calls and e-mails that these people will send to the BBC asking "how the heck do I install this silly plugin thing?"
Microsoft isn't about to give up their licensing fee revenue stream without a fight, and so they're not going to include the Ogg Vorbis codec in the Media Player anytime soon.
Hmm, good point, it is for this reason that we should all trundle over here and figure out how to submit our public comments on the Microsoft settlement, under the Tunney act. It would be just plain anticompetitive for Microsoft to freeze out the Ogg codec, wouldn't it? Now that you made me think about it, Microsoft will be far from in the clear on this, even after the Tunney comment period.
The BBC is a business. They don't care anything about "free" software versus things they have to pay for.
Once again, good point. The BBC is of course a business, and has to worry about the potential cost of encoding the stream for broadcasting. Hence the attraction of Ogg. Even if Microsoft doesn't charge BBC a fee right now for encoding WMF, they're certain to slap one on if they get control of the market. BBC isn't dumb enough to miss this little point. Then there's the problem of customers potentially being charged by Microsoft to listen to the streams, or being restricted by end user licenses in how they can listen to them, which could limit or erode BBC's market.
Yes indeed, BBC has some very good reasons for looking hard at Ogg.
The question is, which costs more: Providing tech support to people so that they can view their content, or writing one simple check to Microsoft. Unfortunately, the business solution is to just pay Microsoft, it's probably cheaper.
Paying Microsoft is never cheaper in the end, not if you want to stay competitive.
Actualy this is not a push for open-source, but a push for alternatives. BBC, from what I understand is not really happy with Real and it looking to find other formats. Over at Radio 1 they are testing Windows Media formats.
Gosh, it looks like the Windows Media test ends on Jan 2, while the Ogg test continues until Jan 2002.
Hmm, the ogg seems to be available as part of to Windows Media test, as well as through open source players. It seems the whole test, Windows Media and others only runs to January. Wow, source code on the link too.
Actualy this is not a push for open-source, but a push for alternatives. BBC, from what I understand is not really happy with Real and it looking to find other formats. Over at Radio 1 they are testing Windows Media formats.
Gosh, it looks like the Windows Media test ends on Jan 2, while the Ogg test continues until Jan 2002.
And it begs the question "Why?" Lossless = Zip, Rar, Jar, Ace, Arj and a bunch of other compressions.
FLAC is specialized to and optimized for acoustic signals. Try compressing the same WAV under zip and FLAC.
But if I can't hear the difference, what's the difference?
Err, because you're not everybody, and some people *can* tell the difference? Or perhaps you could tell the difference if the rest of your system is good enough - reader, amplifier, speakers, room acoustics, the whole chain.
Whoever set the human ability to hear equal to the 44,1kHz of a CD? For a select few it's maybe more, but for me it's definately less.
Your sampling frequency needs to be *at least* twice the highest audible. 20 KHz is supposed to be the highest audible frequency for humans, and for many it's more than adequate (especially for those who never wore earplugs in nightclubs or at rock concerts). I personally was tested up to around 22 KHz, so the 20 KHz limit is bunk. Not only that, but the 2X rule (think about it) is only *in theory*. It assumes perfect filters, which don't exist. In fact you get artifacts well below what's supposed to be the high cutoff for a 44.1 KHz sample stream.
Lame using the --remix command is more than enough for my ears (actually overkill, but I assume I someday *might* regret not setting it that high). Considering that many ppl are happy with 128kb CBR, I'm probably even picky.
I glad for you, go ahead and listen to the sound the way you like it, but to me and many others the artifacts in 44.1KHz sound are quite audible. As for streams at 128kb, it sounds like it's being played through a phase shifter.
yes, this is a small evolutional step. but when does the simulcasting revolution begin?
You're not quite clear on the concept, this is not about simulcasting, it's about freedom. It's not about sound quality, compression or lightening the network load, it's about not having to pay the man to transmit sound over the internet, to listen to it, or to save it on CDs. It's about making sure that open source multimedia software never becomes illegal.
i'm itching for something akin to broadcast: where we only use bandwidth once, not in multiples of however many listeners we have.
We certainly won't ever get it if you and people like you don't get a clue. Oh sure, you'll be able to rent your music, you'll never be able to own it. You won't be able to save it on your disk. You won't be able to run Linux on your machine, or if you can, it won't be able to play your favorite band's music on your sound card. Sorry if this is going over your head a little, it's important, please make the effort to figure out what I'm saying.
Sorry about being an arrogant bastard... Not! This is for your own good.
Excel is the sole component of Office that does anything useful. This is probably the best spreadsheet for financial and scientific applications out there, and has been since the first release on the MacOS Back in the Day.
Actually, Gnumeric is getting very good these days, have you tried it? Much to my amazement, the early versions used to segfault constantly.
Staroffice may be okay, Wordperfect acceptable, and VIM popular, but until a 100% office replacement exists, most places are going to continue to snub Linux as an alternative on the desktop.
And wtf do we care about diehards who are too clueless to switch? They'll come along soon enough. What will happen first is, MS will have to drop prices way down to keep them from switching. Hooboy, that part is going to be fun.
It's just altogether more *interesting* to keep building up openoffice, to the point where it's just a whole lot better than anything MS can put forth. It's already close to parity in features by the way.
...the fundamental difference is that the average consumer wants to send self-executing greeting cards, videos, and interactive multimedia nonsense.
True enough, and this is a role that Java could and should have played, except for the startling inability of Sun to come up with a light, tight implementation and to an even greater extent, Microsoft's malicious plan to subvert and contain the deployment of Java on Windows boxes.
Perhaps we could look at a sandboxed version of Python. Oh wait, hey - we've got a Linux sandbox, it's called UML.
This linux system that depending on which "stable" version you download, locks up under high load, corrupts your filesystem when umounting it, invisibly reverts your filesystem to one that can be hosed from a power fail, or kills off processes at random -- like init -- when it starts running out of memory... And that's just what I recall off the top of my head from the last few months.
Funny how none of that stuff has happened to me (2.4.13). The umount bug (iput) was just plain dumb - detected immediately, fixed within the day. Now, I think you're being just plain childish about the ext3 fstab issue, this is just a usability issue that is being addressed. All in all, sounds like bleating to me.
If you're worried about stability, use the kernel that comes with your distro. The rest of us would probably prefer to take our chances, just so we can keep flying at the front of the flock.
I don't think IBM are the marketing geniuses they once were!
You're sure about that? Consider that the preaching was aimed more at the choir than anyone else. Effective? Youbetcha. IBM with attitude, rock on, big blue boy!
(Hey, did anyone see Osmosis Joe? Remember the scene where Drixenol gets in on in the gangsta club?)
Don't worry, IBM has their own way of targetting the buttondown IT crowd, and it doesn't revolve around stenciling sidewalks with indelible penguin images. As for the great mass of frontline desktop users, well for the moment it's strictly guerilla warfare there. Emphasis on the 'for the moment'.
From what I understand, ext3fs is just ext2 with journaling support,
Yes and no. Functionally, that's strictly true. Internally, ext2 and ext3 have diverged somewhat. Ext3 does not share any common files with ext3 at this point. Ext3 is still buffer-oriented, wheras Ext2 has largely been converted to use the page cache. The page cache aspects of ext2 are expected to be added to ext3 in due course. At some point, there may be a full merge of the two code bases, though that's going to be a fair amount of work.
When you do, you'll see how much fun it can really be. You get an opportunity to strut your stuff in a social setting. For sure, the social aspect is the fun part, it drives you on to bigger and better things. It's a virtuous circle, because as your skills improve because of the social support, your positive social feedback increases and you try that much harder at the hacking.
Not to mention the satisfaction of building something that will last, and being part of something that matters.
We think that we are pretty good at developing standards, but don't view it as our mission to lobby to have laws changed. Therefore, we need a patent policy that deals with the present-day reality of software patents, which exist in a variety of forms in a variety of countries (not just the US) around the world.
Well good, then your standards-setting days are over, time to step aside and let people take over this work who are willing to lobby to have laws changed, or do whatever else it takes to achieve real, free web standards.
It's hard to believe you were once deputy directory of policy for EFF.
You don't have the fire in your belly any more, you're though.
You'll do a lot more good by subscribing to, and posting to the patentpolicy-comment list than by posting here. Oh, you don't have to be subscribed to the list to email to it, but it's well worth making the extra effort.
While AC has done a great job of judging the priorities of the Linux community as a whole over the priorities of Red hat, there is still the question of how much his employeement at RH effects him.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Alan's employment at Redhat, don't be silly.
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with politics.
Microsoft settlement specifies RAND licensing for "any intellectual property rights owned or licensable by Microsoft that are required to exercise any of the options or alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment."
Gates says that letting Microsoft off will help technology companies, but this deal will just help Microsoft walk on their faces. Excuse me, but how is that good for the economy?
Re:netscape cares about the details...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 2
Like I said, enjoy the funny looks people give you when you try to push Mozilla on them. Of course, that's assuming you ever leave your mom's basement -- I have a feeling that you're the sort who fights for the cause with little messageboard trolls and don't have any infuluence over web dev test plans, desktop rollouts, or any other effective way to improve non-IE browser support.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
A free software project can't show a business need, and anyway, would have to "submit, at its own expense" to whatever "verification and compliance" Microsoft's anti-oss division felt like inventing that day. This is an effective lock-out for free software for all of the subsystems mentioned. Those cover more than enough for Microsoft to continue extending its monopoly into new areas such as online media, and of course, maintain its existing monopolies.
Need to get around the middleware API disclosure rule? Just tie the new file format to some intellectual property protection mechanism, no problem.
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b)any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
So right off, this means that Microsoft can continue to do whatever they want with MS-Kerberos and don't have to give out the source code or license the patented parts, because it's an "authentication system". Same goes for Passport. And this is just the beginning, because Microsoft can embed whatever they want into the security, authentication, etc., subsystems, there is no language to prevent this. And they will, they've got a history of doing exactly that, look at how parts of the IE code got mingled with unrelated library files to support Microsoft's IE bundling strategem.
This settlement is worth exactly as much as the 1995 consent decree.
Re:netscape cares about the details...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 2
I think you completely missed my argument -- I agree that Mozilla is technically a fine browser, just that it's not supposed to be an end-user browser, so don't push it as such.
That's nonsense. Mozilla is a perfectly fine end-user browser, and I feel perfectly comfortable recommending it to whoever. You're on some kind of drugs.
Re:netscape cares about the details...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 3
This is something that's missed by the "Mozilla advocates" that hang on Slashdot and Mozillazine and other places. Mozilla is not an end-user browser. It's for voluntary developers and voluntary QA people only . No non-nerds even know what Mozilla is, so if you try to encourage people to use it, the funny looks they are giving you are well grounded.
I think you're lagged by 3 months or so. Mozilla is in fact now perfectly capable of being your primary browser, it delivers in all departments and seldom crashes. (The only time I don't use Mozilla now is on small memory/slow machines, and there I use Opera, except when Opera can't render the page, then I go to Mozilla, damm the speed:-) You're also wrong about non-nerds. My wife uses Mozilla and is perfectly happy. People use what you give them, so long as it does the job.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're right, Ogg Vorbis streaming is cool, but unfortunately it won't work for the BBC in the long run, for reasons you've put in your post.
The problem is that you had to install something to your base system in order to listen to the stream. There are millions (yes, millions) of users who don't want to have to install anything else, they just want things to work straight of the box. These are exactly the sort of people BBC doesn't want calling their tech support. Any costs saved by avoiding Microsoft license fees get eaten up by the phone calls and e-mails that these people will send to the BBC asking "how the heck do I install this silly plugin thing?"
Microsoft isn't about to give up their licensing fee revenue stream without a fight, and so they're not going to include the Ogg Vorbis codec in the Media Player anytime soon.
Hmm, good point, it is for this reason that we should all trundle over here and figure out how to submit our public comments on the Microsoft settlement, under the Tunney act. It would be just plain anticompetitive for Microsoft to freeze out the Ogg codec, wouldn't it? Now that you made me think about it, Microsoft will be far from in the clear on this, even after the Tunney comment period.
The BBC is a business. They don't care anything about "free" software versus things they have to pay for.
Once again, good point. The BBC is of course a business, and has to worry about the potential cost of encoding the stream for broadcasting. Hence the attraction of Ogg. Even if Microsoft doesn't charge BBC a fee right now for encoding WMF, they're certain to slap one on if they get control of the market. BBC isn't dumb enough to miss this little point. Then there's the problem of customers potentially being charged by Microsoft to listen to the streams, or being restricted by end user licenses in how they can listen to them, which could limit or erode BBC's market. Yes indeed, BBC has some very good reasons for looking hard at Ogg.
The question is, which costs more: Providing tech support to people so that they can view their content, or writing one simple check to Microsoft. Unfortunately, the business solution is to just pay Microsoft, it's probably cheaper.
Paying Microsoft is never cheaper in the end, not if you want to stay competitive.
Actualy this is not a push for open-source, but a push for alternatives. BBC, from what I understand is not really happy with Real and it looking to find other formats. Over at Radio 1 they are testing Windows Media formats.
Gosh, it looks like the Windows Media test ends on Jan 2, while the Ogg test continues until Jan 2002.
Hmm, the ogg seems to be available as part of to Windows Media test, as well as through open source players. It seems the whole test, Windows Media and others only runs to January. Wow, source code on the link too.
Actualy this is not a push for open-source, but a push for alternatives. BBC, from what I understand is not really happy with Real and it looking to find other formats. Over at Radio 1 they are testing Windows Media formats.
Gosh, it looks like the Windows Media test ends on Jan 2, while the Ogg test continues until Jan 2002.
And it begs the question "Why?" Lossless = Zip, Rar, Jar, Ace, Arj and a bunch of other compressions.
FLAC is specialized to and optimized for acoustic signals. Try compressing the same WAV under zip and FLAC.
But if I can't hear the difference, what's the difference?
Err, because you're not everybody, and some people *can* tell the difference? Or perhaps you could tell the difference if the rest of your system is good enough - reader, amplifier, speakers, room acoustics, the whole chain.
Whoever set the human ability to hear equal to the 44,1kHz of a CD? For a select few it's maybe more, but for me it's definately less.
Your sampling frequency needs to be *at least* twice the highest audible. 20 KHz is supposed to be the highest audible frequency for humans, and for many it's more than adequate (especially for those who never wore earplugs in nightclubs or at rock concerts). I personally was tested up to around 22 KHz, so the 20 KHz limit is bunk. Not only that, but the 2X rule (think about it) is only *in theory*. It assumes perfect filters, which don't exist. In fact you get artifacts well below what's supposed to be the high cutoff for a 44.1 KHz sample stream.
Lame using the --remix command is more than enough for my ears (actually overkill, but I assume I someday *might* regret not setting it that high). Considering that many ppl are happy with 128kb CBR, I'm probably even picky.
I glad for you, go ahead and listen to the sound the way you like it, but to me and many others the artifacts in 44.1KHz sound are quite audible. As for streams at 128kb, it sounds like it's being played through a phase shifter.
yes, this is a small evolutional step. but when does the simulcasting revolution begin?
You're not quite clear on the concept, this is not about simulcasting, it's about freedom. It's not about sound quality, compression or lightening the network load, it's about not having to pay the man to transmit sound over the internet, to listen to it, or to save it on CDs. It's about making sure that open source multimedia software never becomes illegal.
i'm itching for something akin to broadcast: where we only use bandwidth once, not in multiples of however many listeners we have.
We certainly won't ever get it if you and people like you don't get a clue. Oh sure, you'll be able to rent your music, you'll never be able to own it. You won't be able to save it on your disk. You won't be able to run Linux on your machine, or if you can, it won't be able to play your favorite band's music on your sound card. Sorry if this is going over your head a little, it's important, please make the effort to figure out what I'm saying.
Sorry about being an arrogant bastard... Not! This is for your own good.
Excel is the sole component of Office that does anything useful. This is probably the best spreadsheet for financial and scientific applications out there, and has been since the first release on the MacOS Back in the Day.
Actually, Gnumeric is getting very good these days, have you tried it? Much to my amazement, the early versions used to segfault constantly.
Staroffice may be okay, Wordperfect acceptable, and VIM popular, but until a 100% office replacement exists, most places are going to continue to snub Linux as an alternative on the desktop.
And wtf do we care about diehards who are too clueless to switch? They'll come along soon enough. What will happen first is, MS will have to drop prices way down to keep them from switching. Hooboy, that part is going to be fun.
It's just altogether more *interesting* to keep building up openoffice, to the point where it's just a whole lot better than anything MS can put forth. It's already close to parity in features by the way.
...the fundamental difference is that the average consumer wants to send self-executing greeting cards, videos, and interactive multimedia nonsense.
True enough, and this is a role that Java could and should have played, except for the startling inability of Sun to come up with a light, tight implementation and to an even greater extent, Microsoft's malicious plan to subvert and contain the deployment of Java on Windows boxes.
Perhaps we could look at a sandboxed version of Python. Oh wait, hey - we've got a Linux sandbox, it's called UML.
/me heads off to find jdike
--
Daniel
This linux system that depending on which "stable" version you download, locks up under high load, corrupts your filesystem when umounting it, invisibly reverts your filesystem to one that can be hosed from a power fail, or kills off processes at random -- like init -- when it starts running out of memory... And that's just what I recall off the top of my head from the last few months.
Funny how none of that stuff has happened to me (2.4.13). The umount bug (iput) was just plain dumb - detected immediately, fixed within the day. Now, I think you're being just plain childish about the ext3 fstab issue, this is just a usability issue that is being addressed. All in all, sounds like bleating to me.
If you're worried about stability, use the kernel that comes with your distro. The rest of us would probably prefer to take our chances, just so we can keep flying at the front of the flock.
I don't think IBM are the marketing geniuses they once were!
You're sure about that? Consider that the preaching was aimed more at the choir than anyone else. Effective? Youbetcha. IBM with attitude, rock on, big blue boy!
(Hey, did anyone see Osmosis Joe? Remember the scene where Drixenol gets in on in the gangsta club?)
Don't worry, IBM has their own way of targetting the buttondown IT crowd, and it doesn't revolve around stenciling sidewalks with indelible penguin images. As for the great mass of frontline desktop users, well for the moment it's strictly guerilla warfare there. Emphasis on the 'for the moment'.
If you've been having the filesystem corruptions,
*Everybody* will get corruption using 2.4.15/2.5.0, just don't use it.
From what I understand, ext3fs is just ext2 with journaling support,
Yes and no. Functionally, that's strictly true. Internally, ext2 and ext3 have diverged somewhat. Ext3 does not share any common files with ext3 at this point. Ext3 is still buffer-oriented, wheras Ext2 has largely been converted to use the page cache. The page cache aspects of ext2 are expected to be added to ext3 in due course. At some point, there may be a full merge of the two code bases, though that's going to be a fair amount of work.
Don't blame Microsoft, the fact that they know how to play the game better than everyone else should not be frowned upon.
Right, the game of Monopoly. Let's fix the situation up the way it was meant to be, and see how well they play the game of Free Enterprise.
When you do, you'll see how much fun it can really be. You get an opportunity to strut your stuff in a social setting. For sure, the social aspect is the fun part, it drives you on to bigger and better things. It's a virtuous circle, because as your skills improve because of the social support, your positive social feedback increases and you try that much harder at the hacking.
Not to mention the satisfaction of building something that will last, and being part of something that matters.
I'm just going through the acorn screenshots and they are truly slick. What I like most about them - taste. Balance. Realism. Detail.
A big improvement from when I last look in a few months ago, keep it up guys, this is great, it's really getting that professional fit and finish.
We think that we are pretty good at developing standards, but don't view it as our mission to lobby to have laws changed. Therefore, we need a patent policy that deals with the present-day reality of software patents, which exist in a variety of forms in a variety of countries (not just the US) around the world.
Well good, then your standards-setting days are over, time to step aside and let people take over this work who are willing to lobby to have laws changed, or do whatever else it takes to achieve real, free web standards.
It's hard to believe you were once deputy directory of policy for EFF.
You don't have the fire in your belly any more, you're though.
You can subscribe to it by sending a message to:
www-patentpolicy-comment-request@w3.org
with subject 'subscribe' and body:
subscribe <your email address>
Archives are here.
You'll do a lot more good by subscribing to, and posting to the patentpolicy-comment list than by posting here. Oh, you don't have to be subscribed to the list to email to it, but it's well worth making the extra effort.
While AC has done a great job of judging the priorities of the Linux community as a whole over the priorities of Red hat, there is still the question of how much his employeement at RH effects him.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Alan's employment at Redhat, don't be silly.
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with politics.
Microsoft settlement specifies RAND licensing for "any intellectual property rights owned or licensable by Microsoft that are required to exercise any of the options or alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment."
See for yourself
In other words, free software is just as locked out of the Microsoft settlement as it would be from web protocols if RAND becomes the policy.
Gates says that letting Microsoft off will help technology companies, but this deal will just help Microsoft walk on their faces. Excuse me, but how is that good for the economy?
Like I said, enjoy the funny looks people give you when you try to push Mozilla on them. Of course, that's assuming you ever leave your mom's basement -- I have a feeling that you're the sort who fights for the cause with little messageboard trolls and don't have any infuluence over web dev test plans, desktop rollouts, or any other effective way to improve non-IE browser support.
Read my user info, asshole.
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
[...]
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
A free software project can't show a business need, and anyway, would have to "submit, at its own expense" to whatever "verification and compliance" Microsoft's anti-oss division felt like inventing that day. This is an effective lock-out for free software for all of the subsystems mentioned. Those cover more than enough for Microsoft to continue extending its monopoly into new areas such as online media, and of course, maintain its existing monopolies.
Need to get around the middleware API disclosure rule? Just tie the new file format to some intellectual property protection mechanism, no problem.
Tacked on to the end of this:
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b)any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
So right off, this means that Microsoft can continue to do whatever they want with MS-Kerberos and don't have to give out the source code or license the patented parts, because it's an "authentication system". Same goes for Passport. And this is just the beginning, because Microsoft can embed whatever they want into the security, authentication, etc., subsystems, there is no language to prevent this. And they will, they've got a history of doing exactly that, look at how parts of the IE code got mingled with unrelated library files to support Microsoft's IE bundling strategem.
This settlement is worth exactly as much as the 1995 consent decree.
I think you completely missed my argument -- I agree that Mozilla is technically a fine browser, just that it's not supposed to be an end-user browser, so don't push it as such.
That's nonsense. Mozilla is a perfectly fine end-user browser, and I feel perfectly comfortable recommending it to whoever. You're on some kind of drugs.
This is something that's missed by the "Mozilla advocates" that hang on Slashdot and Mozillazine and other places. Mozilla is not an end-user browser. It's for voluntary developers and voluntary QA people only . No non-nerds even know what Mozilla is, so if you try to encourage people to use it, the funny looks they are giving you are well grounded.
:-) You're also wrong about non-nerds. My wife uses Mozilla and is perfectly happy. People use what you give them, so long as it does the job.
I think you're lagged by 3 months or so. Mozilla is in fact now perfectly capable of being your primary browser, it delivers in all departments and seldom crashes. (The only time I don't use Mozilla now is on small memory/slow machines, and there I use Opera, except when Opera can't render the page, then I go to Mozilla, damm the speed