I guess you've been living partly under a rock then. Commercial alternatives to Exchange already exists and open source versions are under development and will soon be available. Take a look at http://kroupware.org/ and http://opengroupware.org/
Right now freenetproject.org points at something else which also means that their client installer doesn't work since it tries to download something from that url...
Actually, I think it's a good question. What is the definition of and "open standard"?
Since W3C isn't a standards organisation, they "only" create so called "recommendations"!
My definition of an open standard is:
1. It's properly documented and freely available to anyone.
2. No restrictions in regards to implementation and use.
3. Open development.
In regards to the third point - if MS made the full specifications of their.doc format freely available to anyone (#1 and #2 in the above list), I wouldn't call it an open standard, that is an open specification. MS is still 100% in control of furture changes.
This is currently discussed in Denmark too (should open standards be a requirement), but no one has defined what they mean when they say "open standard". MS Denmark is saying that they fully supports the use of open standards. I'm pretty convinced that their definition of an open standard isn't the same as the definition above...
I would personally be happy if they just made "open specifications" a requirement.
The article is a bit wrong - as the only EU countries, Denmark and Greece implemented this before the time limit. Even though there was a lot of protests against it and a lot of suggestions to make it less bad (countries have some flexility in the way it implements such EU directives), our (completely clueless) minister for that area pretty much ignored them and they implemented a very confusing law. Even the state financed "consumer advisory council" (dunno if that's the correct term) is so confused about the law that they simply forward questions about it to the ministry that handles that because they don't know how to answer the questions!
I would rather have a law that made open standards a requirement. Exactly as Bruce Perens says with his Sincere Choice initiative as a response to "The Initiative for Software Choice".
With all due respect: Taste differs. I don't there is something that everyone thinks is funny - there's nothing wierd or insightful in that, IMHO.
Personally, I found that clip absolutely hilarious - I just wish I could get hold of an "non-american" version because all those stupid beeps kinda ruins it IMHO. It's not like there's a lot of people that don't know what he's saying anyway, so what's the point? I'm glad they don't edit everything like that here.
Another question: What exactly is he saying in the last sentence?
I get you point and yes, I call would still call it theft. What if it isn't a movie, but some company secret that some cracker got from the company network? The data could be research data, that was worth a lot to competitors, but it didn't cost anything to make that copy the cracker got, did it?
No, it didn't cost them anything that you downloaded that copy, but it not up to you to decide whether you should have the right to do it. They made it, so it's their decision. They have decided to sell it on a DVD soon - do you think that all these illigal copies doesn't hurt the DVD sale at all? and when the DVD is released, illigal copies will be made - don't you think that will hurt the sale? Do that cost the makers money? Yes it do.
I bought 2 chocolade bars yesterday, so it's okay that I steal one today?
Even if you paid to watch "Reloaded" one million times in the theater, it wouldn't matter - it's still just as illigal to download that copy of "Reloaded" like you did!
I'm not so sure about that (of course, it depends on the definition of "near future"). Lots of business people use GPRS or "High Speed Data" (or whatever it is called) to connect to the company network from anywhere and GPRS isn't *that* fast.
I don't know about Sun and Java, but I what I *do* know is that Microsoft have several software patents related to.Net. A few quotes (taken from http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/index.en.h tml):
Responding to questions about the opening-up of the.NET framework, Ballmer announced that there would certainly be a "Common Language Runtime Implementation" for Unix, but then explained that this development would be limited to a subset, which was "intended only for academic use". Ballmer rejected speculations about support for free.NET implementationens such as Mono: "We have invested so many millions in.NET, we have so many patents on.NET, which we want to cultivate."
=====
Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."
Go ahead and start using Mono for your new project...
Bluetooth is cool, but the security is not that good according to people that knows a lot more about that than I do:)
I personally don't see it as a huge problem considering the limited range of Bluetooth and I own a Bluetooth headset - works nice:)
Be aware though that Nokia and Bluetooth isn't exactly the best combination (although my Nokia 6310 + Jabra BT300 works perfectly), apparently Nokia isn't too keen on following the standard, in a way they are use the embrace and extend technic like MS. This means that Nokia phones works best with Nokia's own Bluetooth headsets, which is still more or less impossible to get:(
And I was pretty impressed. Especially I was impressed by the handwriting program - it was very close at 100% correctly detecting my handwriting. I have previously had the Motorola Accompli 008 and it *sucks*. I have also had various Palms (III, V and Vx versions) and while Grafitti is pretty cool, I found this to be better.
Whether it is ugly or not - that's a matter of taste. I think it looks pretty okay.
It's easy to look at IBM as a "the good guy" and forget all the bad things they stand for too!
In Europe there is currently a big fight about software patents and who do you think is a big supporter of them?
Here is a quote: IBM's patent department is actively lobbying Europe to legalise software patents. They have invested millions in fighting example cases to leading European lawcourts such as the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal and the German Federal Court in order to soften and eventually remove European restrictions on patenting software. They have also threatened European politicians that IBM might close down local facilities if software patents are not legalised in Europe. IBM has also prevented the US government from conducting studies on the value of software patents for the national economy. In the wake of the Opensource hype, IBM's rhetoric has become relatively moderate, but nonetheless it is supported by real pressure. IBM has acquired approximately 1000 European software patents whose legal status is currently unclear. Given the great number of software patents in IBM's hands, IBM is one of the few software companies who may have a genuine interest in software patentability. Once software patents become assertable in Europe, an IBM tax of several hundered million EUR may be levied on European software companies.
Yes, I should have been more specific in my previous post, sorry.
Next, you're wrong. Read the reply from spinlocked. Also, I've just watched (real stream) a lecture from PHK (FreeBSD kernel developer, http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/ - basically, he knows what he's talking about...), I could give you a link, but it's in Danish so you will not understand it. However, in this lecture (presenting FreeBSD 5.0), he also talks about Bluetooth and he is certainly not impressed. Some guy had tried to walk around at a conference somewhere to see what he was able to connect to. Among other things he catched two guys standing next to each other, talking (not over the phone, of course) and they apparently both had Bluetooth enabled phones. He made the one phone call the other one:)
Is that your idea of good security?;)
According to him, firewire also have a big security hole. You apparently get read and write access to the memory of a machine when you connect with firewire. Quite sad actually because other than that, Firewire is actually a quite cool technology.
I can't understand that you aren't worried about the software patents Microsoft have on the technology. I wouldn't dare using Mono, simply because of that fact. If Mono gets too popular for Microsoft to like, then I find it likely they'll use their patents against Mono.
Slashdot Mirror
If possible, I would wait until that hits the marked: Plextor PX-708A
I guess you've been living partly under a rock then. Commercial alternatives to Exchange already exists and open source versions are under development and will soon be available. Take a look at http://kroupware.org/ and http://opengroupware.org/
Right now freenetproject.org points at something else which also means that their client installer doesn't work since it tries to download something from that url...
I considered one of those as they are really cool, but sadly, they are way to expensive :(
erhm...as others have said - Use Jabber and let it log everything on the server.
Actually, I think it's a good question. What is the definition of and "open standard"?
Since W3C isn't a standards organisation, they "only" create so called "recommendations"!
My definition of an open standard is:
1. It's properly documented and freely available to anyone.
2. No restrictions in regards to implementation and use.
3. Open development.
In regards to the third point - if MS made the full specifications of their .doc format freely available to anyone (#1 and #2 in the above list), I wouldn't call it an open standard, that is an open specification. MS is still 100% in control of furture changes.
This is currently discussed in Denmark too (should open standards be a requirement), but no one has defined what they mean when they say "open standard". MS Denmark is saying that they fully supports the use of open standards. I'm pretty convinced that their definition of an open standard isn't the same as the definition above...
I would personally be happy if they just made "open specifications" a requirement.
The article is a bit wrong - as the only EU countries, Denmark and Greece implemented this before the time limit. Even though there was a lot of protests against it and a lot of suggestions to make it less bad (countries have some flexility in the way it implements such EU directives), our (completely clueless) minister for that area pretty much ignored them and they implemented a very confusing law. Even the state financed "consumer advisory council" (dunno if that's the correct term) is so confused about the law that they simply forward questions about it to the ministry that handles that because they don't know how to answer the questions!
I would rather have a law that made open standards a requirement. Exactly as Bruce Perens says with his Sincere Choice initiative as a response to "The Initiative for Software Choice".
With all due respect: Taste differs. I don't there is something that everyone thinks is funny - there's nothing wierd or insightful in that, IMHO.
Personally, I found that clip absolutely hilarious - I just wish I could get hold of an "non-american" version because all those stupid beeps kinda ruins it IMHO. It's not like there's a lot of people that don't know what he's saying anyway, so what's the point? I'm glad they don't edit everything like that here.
Another question: What exactly is he saying in the last sentence?
I'm sorry, english isn't my primary language - let's continue in Danish ;)
I get you point and yes, I call would still call it theft. What if it isn't a movie, but some company secret that some cracker got from the company network? The data could be research data, that was worth a lot to competitors, but it didn't cost anything to make that copy the cracker got, did it?
No, it didn't cost them anything that you downloaded that copy, but it not up to you to decide whether you should have the right to do it. They made it, so it's their decision. They have decided to sell it on a DVD soon - do you think that all these illigal copies doesn't hurt the DVD sale at all? and when the DVD is released, illigal copies will be made - don't you think that will hurt the sale? Do that cost the makers money? Yes it do.
If it had no value, why do people download it?
I bought 2 chocolade bars yesterday, so it's okay that I steal one today?
Even if you paid to watch "Reloaded" one million times in the theater, it wouldn't matter - it's still just as illigal to download that copy of "Reloaded" like you did!
Nope...not GPRS networks - what lots of companies have paid insane amounts of money for is UMTS licenses == 3G networks.
I'm not so sure about that (of course, it depends on the definition of "near future"). Lots of business people use GPRS or "High Speed Data" (or whatever it is called) to connect to the company network from anywhere and GPRS isn't *that* fast.
# 50% drop in system noise
I guess that depends on what models you compare it to...
I would suggest Distributed Folding instead. At least they got good clients and clients for more than just Windows ;)
I don't know about Sun and Java, but I what I *do* know is that Microsoft have several software patents related to .Net. A few quotes (taken from http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/index.en.h tml):
Responding to questions about the opening-up of the .NET framework, Ballmer announced that there would certainly be a "Common Language Runtime Implementation" for Unix, but then explained that this development would be limited to a subset, which was "intended only for academic use". Ballmer rejected speculations about support for free .NET implementationens such as Mono: "We have invested so many millions in .NET, we have so many patents on .NET, which we want to cultivate."
=====
Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."
Go ahead and start using Mono for your new project...
Bluetooth is cool, but the security is not that good according to people that knows a lot more about that than I do :) :)
I personally don't see it as a huge problem considering the limited range of Bluetooth and I own a Bluetooth headset - works nice
Be aware though that Nokia and Bluetooth isn't exactly the best combination (although my Nokia 6310 + Jabra BT300 works perfectly), apparently Nokia isn't too keen on following the standard, in a way they are use the embrace and extend technic like MS. This means that Nokia phones works best with Nokia's own Bluetooth headsets, which is still more or less impossible to get :(
And I was pretty impressed. Especially I was impressed by the handwriting program - it was very close at 100% correctly detecting my handwriting. I have previously had the Motorola Accompli 008 and it *sucks*. I have also had various Palms (III, V and Vx versions) and while Grafitti is pretty cool, I found this to be better.
Whether it is ugly or not - that's a matter of taste. I think it looks pretty okay.
It's easy to look at IBM as a "the good guy" and forget all the bad things they stand for too!
In Europe there is currently a big fight about software patents and who do you think is a big supporter of them?
Here is a quote:
IBM's patent department is actively lobbying Europe to legalise software patents. They have invested millions in fighting example cases to leading European lawcourts such as the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal and the German Federal Court in order to soften and eventually remove European restrictions on patenting software. They have also threatened European politicians that IBM might close down local facilities if software patents are not legalised in Europe. IBM has also prevented the US government from conducting studies on the value of software patents for the national economy. In the wake of the Opensource hype, IBM's rhetoric has become relatively moderate, but nonetheless it is supported by real pressure. IBM has acquired approximately 1000 European software patents whose legal status is currently unclear. Given the great number of software patents in IBM's hands, IBM is one of the few software companies who may have a genuine interest in software patentability. Once software patents become assertable in Europe, an IBM tax of several hundered million EUR may be levied on European software companies.
Link
Now, what is the biggest threat to Linux? SCO or software patents?
Besides that, I find SCO's suit very stupid - the only winner in this is going to be the laywers.
Linux Forum 2003 - Live webcasting: http://linuxforum.mmmanager.net/
Yes, I should have been more specific in my previous post, sorry.
Next, you're wrong. Read the reply from spinlocked. Also, I've just watched (real stream) a lecture from PHK (FreeBSD kernel developer, http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/ - basically, he knows what he's talking about...), I could give you a link, but it's in Danish so you will not understand it. However, in this lecture (presenting FreeBSD 5.0), he also talks about Bluetooth and he is certainly not impressed. Some guy had tried to walk around at a conference somewhere to see what he was able to connect to. Among other things he catched two guys standing next to each other, talking (not over the phone, of course) and they apparently both had Bluetooth enabled phones. He made the one phone call the other one :) ;)
Is that your idea of good security?
According to him, firewire also have a big security hole. You apparently get read and write access to the memory of a machine when you connect with firewire. Quite sad actually because other than that, Firewire is actually a quite cool technology.
Bluetooth is cool and all, just be aware that bluetooth have basically no security at all, AFAIK
I can't understand that you aren't worried about the software patents Microsoft have on the technology. I wouldn't dare using Mono, simply because of that fact. If Mono gets too popular for Microsoft to like, then I find it likely they'll use their patents against Mono.
What Linux addressbook/calendar/etc. applications are you sync'ing with?