No offense to the guys doing wonderful work on the Mozilla project, but there are already lots of calendar apps out there.
What people ask for in the corporate world is a full Outlook replacement. This does not exist in the F/OSS world.
Yes, I know about Ximian Connector, but that's not free or Open Source, and when you start telling customers "well, everything is free unless you want to use all of Outlook's functionality, then you have to pay..." they look at you like you're trying to con them.
Same goes with Codeweaver's Crossover Office.
It's worse when you're trying to sell Sun's Java Desktop System (which is actually quite nice, BTW) and you tell them "yeah, you have to pay for this, then you have to pay for that..." and they start asking "how much else do I have to buy to replace Windows? This is starting to sound like it's not worth it."
In the world of people fed up with MS, and having to drasticaly cut their budget, in fear for their jobs if they make a minor mistake, telling them they have to pay $60/head for people just to get Outlook funtionality doesn't go over very well. If they dropped the price to around $10-$25... it would probably fly of the proverbial shelves. Heck, JDS (the whole O/S) is only $50-$100/head and that's with a full year support!
Oh, and ditto to the Exchange replacements... people ARE asking for it.
If you don't know the difference between copyright and patent laws, you shouldn't bother joining in the discussion. There is a HUGE difference.
Copyrights ARE a good thing, with regard to software - they prevent outright copying and provide "ownership" (even in the case of a GPLed product) and provide legal protection.
Patents, with regard to software, are an insane idea... I find it absolutely astonishing that someone who claims to be a programmer would think otherwise!
Your comment about working around patents makes no sense... how can you make a spreadsheet if someone already patented spreadsheets? How can you write an email client if email clients are patented? How can you write a filesystem module/driver for an operating system if filesystem modules/drivers are patented? The answers: You can't (legally), and you've just invented a tower of monopolies built by the people with the most money, and utterly destroyed an industry.
Also, by your reasoning, the software industry should have self-destructed before computers ever became popular... think about it - we _DO_NOT_ currently have software patents! Your reasoning is proven horribly flawed by this fact alone.
The more I think about all of your arguements, the more obvious it is that you are horribly confused as to the difference between software copyrights and software patents.
I can tell you're not a programmer... software IS just like a recipe - just a very complex one. "Hello World" is like making pancakes from a boxed mix.
So you're saying if IBM patented natural language recognition, that it would be a good thing? Resulting in a total lack of competition, making them the only company in the world who could produce and sell it?
Hmmm... I'm not sure I can see the value in that.
Personally, I'd much rather see other companies try and out-do the competition (producing a better product)... that IS the whole basis for the idea (of competition) in the first place.
Think about it... if companies can patent software ideas, then they will - every single idea they come up with. The vast majority of these will never see the light of day, they just want to make sure no-one else produces anything that *might* take away their market-share, or that they *might* produce - some day.
Where do you think the idea of "vaporware" came from? They try and keep the competition from developing or selling something that they themselves don't have any plans on producing (or are merely testing the waters for). Patenting would be SO much easier, cleaner, and faster... no psychology involved.
Now what company is famous for such behaviour? What company also has nearly limitless reserves and lawyers on staff? What _software_ company already patents everything they can whether it has anything to do with their business or not (like hinges)?
I worked in a company that did this (not a software company), so don't try and say this doesn't happen... their bonus program was based on how many patents an engineer submits/gets per quarter.
BTW: I used IBM as an example, but it would probably be the opposite, CMU would probably have the patent preventing IBM from working on it.
True, but you have to keep in mind that those arguements will be taken as "just arguements", not true analysis unless the people you are trying to convince can understand the situation.
An analogy like I suggested will do just that... then follow with your suggestions, and they'll understand how damaging it could be if only one restaraunt in the world could make apple-pie. Think of how huge the food industry is - it's the single biggest industry in the world (followed by the transportation industry). Something like this would have devastated that industry to the point of companies only being able to supply the base ingredients - the customer having to put everything together themselves (no TV-dinners, premade pasta, etc.).
Our two examples used together should be a serious wakeup call to those considering passing these laws.
Legalese, when it comes to patents, is nearly ALWAYS obfuscation.
Just take a look at any of the patents that have been posted about on/. over the years.
"One click", "cookies to save user-specific data", "names as subdomains"... do I really need to go on?
Besides, lawmakers are NOT the same people as patent attourneys, the ones who write the patents up in legalese. The lawmakers are the ones passing laws like DMCA, UCITA, PATRIOT, et al.
Source code specifically, and software in general, are like food recipes.
Allowing patents on such would be like allowing someone to patent "sift 2 cups of flour with 1 tsp baking soda and 1/4 teaspoon of salt into a bowl".
When put in those terms the rediculousness of the idea becomes obvious. Unfortunately, you have to dumb things down for lawmakers to understand what they're dealing with... this should be simple enough for them to understand.
It was all over the news with the end-of-year filings that MS lost over $1B on the XBox production.
I also read an interview with one of the engineers who developed the thing... in which he said that MS will NEVER make money on the 1st-generation X-box, and in fact won't make any on the hardware until the release of the 2nd-gen units.
All of these articles had slashdot stories, in case you don't like google (do you REALLY need me to hold your hand and walk you right to the articles?).
(note to moderators: read the whole thing before moderating "off-topic")
I remember reading (linked from SlashDot) a year or two ago that MS loses $100 on each X-Box sold, this was before the LAST price drop...
This reminds me of the moron my sister works for... he was pricing something they sell below their cost, so they lose money on each sale. When she pointed this out to him, he said "We'll make it up in volume!"... and he was dead serious!
Anyways, back on topic... since Linux runs on X-box, we should probably buy these for steaming media-servers or something, just to help MS lose more money!;)
1. You have an app that requires a serious amount of computing power, and a bunch of people who use it.... you don't want to buy each one a $40k monster, so you just by one.
2. Ease of administration... you only have to install/tweak/fight-with/de-virus/etc. one box.
3. Remote access... this is the biggie. At my company, many people need to access internal applications (that involve databases, etc.) remotely, this allows them to work from home, customer sites, etc.
With Tarantella, you don't just get a remote desktop like you do with Citrix... you get a totally configurable "webtop" that I couldn't possibly describe the capabilities of here. Suffice it to say that when I log into Tarantella, I can launch a whole mess of different applications by themselves (without a remote desktop), or a full remote desktop to an array of different systems (running everything from MS-Windows to Solaris to Linux)... all from any system that has a Java capable web-browser.
I wasn't comparing Tarantella to Citrix other than the ease-of-administration.
"requires zero software be loaded on the machines the display is coming from or the ones the display is being forwarded to."...I'd love to see software that can be run on a remote computer allowing arbitrary execution...sounds like an exploit to me;)
This is the one place where Tarantella really wins, in an environment with different admins and paranoid security (they're afraid to break anything by adding external software). It uses a number of protocals, but most commonly (when coming from a MS-Windows system, keeping with the spirit of the original article), RDP. Go to their website and read the info... you might actually like it.
Try Tarantella, made by the folks who USED to be called SCO (the ones who sold the name to Caldera).
This product is much like Citrix, but _much_ easier to administer and requires zero software be loaded on the machines the display is coming from or the ones the display is being forwarded to. Oh, and it runs on Solaris or Linux!
The client uses any Java capable web-browser... can't get any simpler than that.
You will still need the MS-Windows box to actually run the apps on and provide the display, etc.
Tarantella will not only provide access to your local drives, but also your printers (configurable for security).
The data is also encrypted, so it's safe to use this as a remote-access method via the internet.
http://www.tarantella.com/
As a disclaimer, I should mention that I not only use this at work for remote access, but I work for a Tarantella reseller. With this in mind, note that I'm pointing you to Tarantella's site, not the company I work for (we won't see any profit if you get it from someone else). I just happen to like the product better than its alternatives.
Bravo! This is exactly what I was thinking.... and yes, it is drastically more efficient than going through 4 conversions (sunlight -> DC -> AC -> mechanical power). It would also take less room than the equivalent solar cells, and will probably cost a tiny fraction of the amount.
It's hell, living behind the Tofu Curtain. It's even tougher being the laughingstock of the nation.
Not like Palm Beach County (Florida), the laughing-stock of the world.
I'd guess the only reason such a big deal is being made out of this is because it is California "land of geeks and geniuses", rather than South Florida "land of people who can't even figure out how to vote" (where stuff like this happens all the time).
I know Dell claims to be, and pretended to try Linux on consumer systems and gave up claiming "they weren't selling"... but that was because of the systems they chose to list Linux as an option with.
Just because we like an OS that _happens_ to be free (in both senses of the word), doesn't mean we're cheapskates!
How many Linux users do you know who would go out and buy the bottom-of-the-line of anything? We go for the hotrods, bigger/better/faster/more. I don't care if that monster notebook weighs 8.5#, I'm not a wimp, I want the power and rediculously-high resolution screen!
Actually - after reading an article on installing Linux on an I8600, I priced one - amazing how cheap you can get a 1920x1200 LCD notebook for these days.
Too bad it requires the MS-tax.
The 1st thing I'd do with it is shrink down the MS partition to as small as it goes (to keep it around to make the diag-drones happy) and install Linux on it. (just like I did with the notebook I'm typing this on, sadly only having 1400x1050 on the LCD).
Nope, it's a design flaw - and a well known and documented one at that. See the O'reilly backup book (written by former co-workers) for more details (though it was well documented long before that book was written).
Just try to restore anything (past the error) using *any* version of tar, from a tar file (or tape) with an error in the middle. It will bomb out as soon as it hits the error.
True, tar cannot handle a single error... all files past that error are lost.
On the other hand, cpio (and clones) can handle missing/damaged data without losing the undamaged portions that follow (you only lose the archived file that contains the damage). It is the only common/free format I can think of (from the top of my head) that is capable of this.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense to the guys doing wonderful work on the Mozilla project, but there are already lots of calendar apps out there.
What people ask for in the corporate world is a full Outlook replacement. This does not exist in the F/OSS world.
Yes, I know about Ximian Connector, but that's not free or Open Source, and when you start telling customers "well, everything is free unless you want to use all of Outlook's functionality, then you have to pay..." they look at you like you're trying to con them.
Same goes with Codeweaver's Crossover Office.
It's worse when you're trying to sell Sun's Java Desktop System (which is actually quite nice, BTW) and you tell them "yeah, you have to pay for this, then you have to pay for that..." and they start asking "how much else do I have to buy to replace Windows? This is starting to sound like it's not worth it."
In the world of people fed up with MS, and having to drasticaly cut their budget, in fear for their jobs if they make a minor mistake, telling them they have to pay $60/head for people just to get Outlook funtionality doesn't go over very well.
If they dropped the price to around $10-$25... it would probably fly of the proverbial shelves.
Heck, JDS (the whole O/S) is only $50-$100/head and that's with a full year support!
Oh, and ditto to the Exchange replacements... people ARE asking for it.
Listen to The Randi Rhodes Show... she recently got syndicated, so might be in your area. If she's not... listen to the streamed audio over the internet.
I'm not involved with the show, just a fan who's happy she finally got syndicated.
We (in the US) have software COPYRIGHTS.
We (in the US) do NOT have software patents.
If I am wrong, please point me to the new law passed that allows patents to be applied to software - as I obviously missed that one.
First, the copyright laws already cover _everything_ you've already brought up.
If you don't know the difference between copyright and patent laws, you shouldn't bother joining in the discussion.
There is a HUGE difference.
Copyrights ARE a good thing, with regard to software - they prevent outright copying and provide "ownership" (even in the case of a GPLed product) and provide legal protection.
Patents, with regard to software, are an insane idea... I find it absolutely astonishing that someone who claims to be a programmer would think otherwise!
Your comment about working around patents makes no sense... how can you make a spreadsheet if someone already patented spreadsheets?
How can you write an email client if email clients are patented?
How can you write a filesystem module/driver for an operating system if filesystem modules/drivers are patented?
The answers: You can't (legally), and you've just invented a tower of monopolies built by the people with the most money, and utterly destroyed an industry.
Also, by your reasoning, the software industry should have self-destructed before computers ever became popular... think about it - we _DO_NOT_ currently have software patents!
Your reasoning is proven horribly flawed by this fact alone.
The more I think about all of your arguements, the more obvious it is that you are horribly confused as to the difference between software copyrights and software patents.
I can tell you're not a programmer... software IS just like a recipe - just a very complex one. "Hello World" is like making pancakes from a boxed mix.
So you're saying if IBM patented natural language recognition, that it would be a good thing?
Resulting in a total lack of competition, making them the only company in the world who could produce and sell it?
Hmmm... I'm not sure I can see the value in that.
Personally, I'd much rather see other companies try and out-do the competition (producing a better product)... that IS the whole basis for the idea (of competition) in the first place.
Think about it... if companies can patent software ideas, then they will - every single idea they come up with. The vast majority of these will never see the light of day, they just want to make sure no-one else produces anything that *might* take away their market-share, or that they *might* produce - some day.
Where do you think the idea of "vaporware" came from? They try and keep the competition from developing or selling something that they themselves don't have any plans on producing (or are merely testing the waters for).
Patenting would be SO much easier, cleaner, and faster... no psychology involved.
Now what company is famous for such behaviour?
What company also has nearly limitless reserves and lawyers on staff?
What _software_ company already patents everything they can whether it has anything to do with their business or not (like hinges)?
I worked in a company that did this (not a software company), so don't try and say this doesn't happen... their bonus program was based on how many patents an engineer submits/gets per quarter.
BTW: I used IBM as an example, but it would probably be the opposite, CMU would probably have the patent preventing IBM from working on it.
Yeah... that's a good idea. ( - sarcasm )
True, but you have to keep in mind that those arguements will be taken as "just arguements", not true analysis unless the people you are trying to convince can understand the situation.
An analogy like I suggested will do just that... then follow with your suggestions, and they'll understand how damaging it could be if only one restaraunt in the world could make apple-pie.
Think of how huge the food industry is - it's the single biggest industry in the world (followed by the transportation industry).
Something like this would have devastated that industry to the point of companies only being able to supply the base ingredients - the customer having to put everything together themselves (no TV-dinners, premade pasta, etc.).
Our two examples used together should be a serious wakeup call to those considering passing these laws.
Legalese, when it comes to patents, is nearly ALWAYS obfuscation.
Just take a look at any of the patents that have been posted about on
"One click", "cookies to save user-specific data", "names as subdomains"... do I really need to go on?
Besides, lawmakers are NOT the same people as patent attourneys, the ones who write the patents up in legalese.
The lawmakers are the ones passing laws like DMCA, UCITA, PATRIOT, et al.
Thank you... precisely my point!
Very well put.
Source code specifically, and software in general, are like food recipes.
Allowing patents on such would be like allowing someone to patent "sift 2 cups of flour with 1 tsp baking soda and 1/4 teaspoon of salt into a bowl".
When put in those terms the rediculousness of the idea becomes obvious. Unfortunately, you have to dumb things down for lawmakers to understand what they're dealing with... this should be simple enough for them to understand.
Dood, do some research... it won't take much.
It was all over the news with the end-of-year filings that MS lost over $1B on the XBox production.
I also read an interview with one of the engineers who developed the thing... in which he said that MS will NEVER make money on the 1st-generation X-box, and in fact won't make any on the hardware until the release of the 2nd-gen units.
All of these articles had slashdot stories, in case you don't like google (do you REALLY need me to hold your hand and walk you right to the articles?).
(note to moderators: read the whole thing before moderating "off-topic")
I remember reading (linked from SlashDot) a year or two ago that MS loses $100 on each X-Box sold, this was before the LAST price drop...
This reminds me of the moron my sister works for... he was pricing something they sell below their cost, so they lose money on each sale. When she pointed this out to him, he said "We'll make it up in volume!"... and he was dead serious!
Anyways, back on topic... since Linux runs on X-box, we should probably buy these for steaming media-servers or something, just to help MS lose more money!
A few pop to mind.
1.
You have an app that requires a serious amount of computing power, and a bunch of people who use it.... you don't want to buy each one a $40k monster, so you just by one.
2.
Ease of administration... you only have to install/tweak/fight-with/de-virus/etc. one box.
3.
Remote access... this is the biggie. At my company, many people need to access internal applications (that involve databases, etc.) remotely, this allows them to work from home, customer sites, etc.
With Tarantella, you don't just get a remote desktop like you do with Citrix... you get a totally configurable "webtop" that I couldn't possibly describe the capabilities of here.
Suffice it to say that when I log into Tarantella, I can launch a whole mess of different applications by themselves (without a remote desktop), or a full remote desktop to an array of different systems (running everything from MS-Windows to Solaris to Linux)... all from any system that has a Java capable web-browser.
I wasn't comparing Tarantella to Citrix other than the ease-of-administration.
"requires zero software be loaded on the machines the display is coming from or the ones the display is being forwarded to."...I'd love to see software that can be run on a remote computer allowing arbitrary execution...sounds like an exploit to me
This is the one place where Tarantella really wins, in an environment with different admins and paranoid security (they're afraid to break anything by adding external software).
It uses a number of protocals, but most commonly (when coming from a MS-Windows system, keeping with the spirit of the original article), RDP.
Go to their website and read the info... you might actually like it.
Try Tarantella, made by the folks who USED to be called SCO (the ones who sold the name to Caldera).
This product is much like Citrix, but _much_ easier to administer and requires zero software be loaded on the machines the display is coming from or the ones the display is being forwarded to.
Oh, and it runs on Solaris or Linux!
The client uses any Java capable web-browser... can't get any simpler than that.
You will still need the MS-Windows box to actually run the apps on and provide the display, etc.
Tarantella will not only provide access to your local drives, but also your printers (configurable for security).
The data is also encrypted, so it's safe to use this as a remote-access method via the internet.
http://www.tarantella.com/
As a disclaimer, I should mention that I not only use this at work for remote access, but I work for a Tarantella reseller.
With this in mind, note that I'm pointing you to Tarantella's site, not the company I work for (we won't see any profit if you get it from someone else).
I just happen to like the product better than its alternatives.
Am I the only one thinking this would be awesome for helping to debunk cheesy trademarks?
Bravo!
This is exactly what I was thinking.... and yes, it is drastically more efficient than going through 4 conversions (sunlight -> DC -> AC -> mechanical power).
It would also take less room than the equivalent solar cells, and will probably cost a tiny fraction of the amount.
It's hell, living behind the Tofu Curtain. It's even tougher being the laughingstock of the nation.
Not like Palm Beach County (Florida), the laughing-stock of the world.
I'd guess the only reason such a big deal is being made out of this is because it is California "land of geeks and geniuses", rather than South Florida "land of people who can't even figure out how to vote" (where stuff like this happens all the time).
Gawd how I miss San Jose.
You still have to have a UPS to cover the time between the power outage and the time the generators are spooled up and producing power.
Heh, yeah... that sure seems to be the business strategy of various governments around the world.
Some are serious about moving to Linux, and some just decide to switch out-of-the-blue, only use it to squeeze a deal out of MS.
Agreed, I run it on some ancient hardware as well, but if I'm going to spend money on something - it's not going to be a dino.
Anyone know if the new guy is Linux-friendly?
I know Dell claims to be, and pretended to try Linux on consumer systems and gave up claiming "they weren't selling"... but that was because of the systems they chose to list Linux as an option with.
Just because we like an OS that _happens_ to be free (in both senses of the word), doesn't mean we're cheapskates!
How many Linux users do you know who would go out and buy the bottom-of-the-line of anything?
We go for the hotrods, bigger/better/faster/more.
I don't care if that monster notebook weighs 8.5#, I'm not a wimp, I want the power and rediculously-high resolution screen!
Actually - after reading an article on installing Linux on an I8600, I priced one - amazing how cheap you can get a 1920x1200 LCD notebook for these days.
Too bad it requires the MS-tax.
The 1st thing I'd do with it is shrink down the MS partition to as small as it goes (to keep it around to make the diag-drones happy) and install Linux on it. (just like I did with the notebook I'm typing this on, sadly only having 1400x1050 on the LCD).
Nope, it's a design flaw - and a well known and documented one at that. See the O'reilly backup book (written by former co-workers) for more details (though it was well documented long before that book was written).
Just try to restore anything (past the error) using *any* version of tar, from a tar file (or tape) with an error in the middle. It will bomb out as soon as it hits the error.
True, tar cannot handle a single error... all files past that error are lost.
On the other hand, cpio (and clones) can handle missing/damaged data without losing the undamaged portions that follow (you only lose the archived file that contains the damage). It is the only common/free format I can think of (from the top of my head) that is capable of this.
Y'know, when I first read this I actually thought you were serious?
Thanks for a good laugh - I needed that!