Maybe we could have some company pay the fee, look at the source, and then work with another team who has never seen the source to finish the WINE compatibility libraries. IIRC this is how the x86 clones were eventually made possible - a "clean room" engineering with some other guys who knew what was going on telling them if they were warm or cold as far as getting it right, but never telling them anything specific. Maybe we could unseat windows the same way IBM got nailed.
I suspect the list above will probably appear either on more lawsuits or on a proposed bill to Congress saying why copyright law must be even stricter and more harmful to creativity.
If you really want a music revolution, start a website which is central to free music everywhere, get some good servers, and only put music on it where you have the explicit permission of the authors and it isn't a derivative product (except things like satire.) Then for goodness sake have a peer review system which ranks each file. THAT will be a new revolution - not swiping their stuff, but plowing their who industry into the ground. Take a page from the open source book - don't break or ignore their rules, but use them as weapons against them. Artists can still make money off of live concerts, and if they choose to release their music in such a fashion it will basically make a statement to the world that they believe they are good enough not to need the RIAA to market them.
The counter to your arguement is that even if it is such an application, if it is well coded or contains interesting those ideas can be reused elsewhere. Very few tasks on computers are so specific that no one else will want to do them. There are too many computer users for that.
Where I CAN see it is if there is some simulation work or something similar where confidential information must be used when writing the code, such as the physical characteristics and parameters of a new weapon or the details of a next generation supercar. THEN I can see closed source. But any application typically will have appeal somewhere. It's whether or not it's a good idea to let out your ideas that should decide it. Even if the application itself is never used, open source preserves ideas. That is it's real power. Even if in ten years we are all programming in smalltalk or something, we can still look at older code to find a solution to something or an elegant piece of code to base something off of, preventing us from reinventing the wheel. If was a good design, no reason for it not to be used again. If was bad, we can see why it was bad and work to avoid those mistakes. So while open source might not benefit one particular application, it will always benefit the community.
Uhh - I seriously doubt Berlin is either desirable or even a possibility for kernel inclusion. That would sort of be like sticking all of X into the kernel (although I don't think Berlin is anywhere near that big yet.) You REALLY don't want to put all of Berlin's stuff into a kernel - that's asking for trouble. You might be able to use KGI to create an in-kernel interface, but considering what happened to the stability of Windows when they tried that I'd recommend against it. Of course, more power to you if you try. There are a couple of X replacements besides Berlin being worked on which are smaller and maybe better suited for kernel work (fewer features, but depending on what you want...):
http://dinx.sourceforge.net/
http://pgui.sourceforge.net/
http://microwindows.censoft.com/
This is an indication of a much larger problem we have with eduction in America. We are taught to USE things, not to UNDERSTAND things. In my NOT so humble opinion computers have no place in education before graduate school, unless they are taught as a subject in and of themselves, not as a substitute for thinking. In this I count TI and HP calculators as computers, how be it small and not really general purpose computers.
I am of this opinion for the simple reason that I have fallen into that trap. I did not have any experience of any note with computers before college, except for one programming class in high school where we used rather pathetic machines at school to work. We had no computer at home except a dedicated purpose word processor. My calculator was not capable of symbolic integration or any of the other nifty tricks that the 89 and 92 are capable of. EVEN SO, the calculator could do logs, roots, and other things that I still have no good intutitive feel for. We need to be less concerned with speed in our teaching and mroe concerned with quality. Basic principles and techniques that have been really learned, not just memorized for a test and forgotten, will be of far more use than quickly picking up a broad survey of concepts.
Students, most of them, don't really want to work hard. It's just not fun. That's where teachers and yes PARENTS need to impose a little disicipline. Not too much, because then it is only the threat of the whip which drives the kid and as soon as the whip is gone (college) the effort goes too. But external disicipline is extremely important in the early years. Just be sure that real learning takes place, and real benefits occur. And show the kid what these benefits are. Don't just say "It'll be of use to you in the future." That's fine for you, but a young kid has no concept of his future. He doesn't see the impact of the past on his present, because he hasn't had enought experience to note cause and effect in his own personal life. Show him/her what they've learned, be excited about it, and if they ask what good it is TELL them. Explain to them about the importance of understanding what's going on around you. Explain to them what science, engineering, and other mathematical endevours mean to their future. Don't assume they won't understand. Just be patient, don't underestimate them, and don't overestimate them. Encourage questions. Never belittle a child or scold him for asking a quetion again and again - if he/she really doesn't understand, you WANT them to keep asking rather than surrender to ignorance.
There is a stigma in American society that if you don't advance a grade each year, you are stupid and behind. Behind in what way? I'd say if you falsly promote a student up a grade they'll be behind all their life, not just a year. Yes, social pressures can be cruel. I've lived through being the oddball and nerdy one all my life, and been shunned and made fun of. But you at least learn when to listen to people and when not to. A useful trick, when you deal with hostile people out in the real world.
Actually, I dislike the use of the phrase "the real world" when applied to the world outside school. For a child, the school world can be horribly real. They are trapped there. All too often, real work ethic is ridiculed, and they get mixed messages from all sides. Parents are essential to provide a clear signal, but even they can do nothing when a student is on the playground being shunned.
I am becoming a huge supporter of home schooling. Have activities where childern interact with each other, but keep learning between the parent and child. Both people involved are thus committed to what needs to be done, and the child can work at his/her pace, whether or not that is faster or slower than average. Also, the parent can then make sure that real understanding and absorption are taking placce, not just memorizing.
And also at home, you can keep them free of electronic aids. I have no problem with computers being TAUGHT in education, but I have a big problem with them being USED in education. If schools want to teach computers, they should teach what makes them work, the history of computers, programming languages, and other basics. If they want to teach how to use computers, I have to pieces of advice. Do not teach any math, spelling or other "educational tool" software until college at the earliest, and do not teach just one system. Teach them to be flexible computer users. Explain how a computer virus works, why they need to worry about them, and how to think about security. Teach them the difference between OS and application, and introduce them to all kinds of both. Hard, you'd better believe it. But very much worthwhile.
I would dearly love to see slide rules come back as a tool in teaching. An intuitive understanding of the world is where fundamental breakthroughs come from. It's also a great source of pride and confidence. Slide rules help build intuition, because the user is involved with the process of solveing. A calculator has none of that.
It is probably too late for me - I doubt I will ever develop the intuitive grasp of the world that the great scientists of old had. Indeed, I seriously doubt most people who have let machines do any significant part of their thinking will. Has anyone noticed how large the precentage of foreign nationals is in our highest education setting, graduate school? So few Americans are there. We just don't have the interest, or the intuition, or the training to want to do it. We pride ourselves on being advanced, but the people responsible for so many of those advances used so many simple tools to learn, REALLY learn, the basics. No computers, no calculators. Pencil and paper, and maybe a slide rule. Basics students don't need more than three sig figs - they are learning BASICS.
Pardon the rant. But this is a serious problem. I think home schooling may become more and more the way to really teach students. Make learning a life long excitement, not something to finish and then do something else. We push too hard, too fast. We burn out. I know what that is too. We need to question both our means, and our ends. I pray that someday we will.
Calm down. A flame war won't help anyone. Your basic point is correct. I should have absorbed his point more thoroughly. (Posting close to midnight probably isn't the best thing to do.) Legally, you are correct, and I concede the point. However, from a broader point of view than the law, this is going to make Adobe look very bad in a lot of markets outside of Germany, whatever German law's traditions are. In the US and a lot of other places where this practice is not common, Adobe will come off looking like a bully. So, if the lawyers had considered the PR concerns of their employer, they should have controlled themselves, contacted Adobe to ask what moves they thought best to take in a potentially delicate situation, and see if Adobe wanted to volunteer to get their name ridiculed by a couple thousand very vocal critics across the world. (Assuming the lawyers had that much forsight - from what we are shown here I rather doubt it.) So from a legal standpoint, you are correct, and I should have noticed it, but from a broader viewpoint something like this should still be Adobe's bill. It would cost them a lot less than the ill will of the open source community, many of whom would be the type of high powered end users Adobe's products appeal to. If you check out the other posts as well, you will have seen some calls to boycott. If I recall, at Adobe's software prices, it would take about five people not buying Photoshop, or a few more than that not buying Illustrator, for this to become a bad financial decision on their part. Since Adobe is all about making money, they might want to give this a little more thought.
"I think for the GPL to take effect the person releasing a piece of software under it, would need to have the right to do so. E.g. if I were to somehow obtain the source for Adobe Illustrator and "release" it under GPL, nobody would actually gain the right to modify the code, as it was never legal for me to grant that right. "
Obviously correct. But not having written the code for Illustrator, you would have no rightful claim to it. In this case, we are talking about the author of KIllustrator. He might not have a right to the name, but since until now no one said anything to him, he certainly had a right to release his own work. Maybe the name wasn't a good idea, but the work itself he could release. He had full copyright on that at the time.
"So while the demands of these lawyers seem ludicrous they'd probably argue that it was never lawful to release the software in the first place."
I don't see how. Release it under that name, certainly. But the software itself isn't what they have a right to complain about, unless it violated patents or something like that. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, their problem is with trademark violation. Once that is gone, they shouldn't have any further complaint to make unless the name reappears. The SOFTWARE itself shouldn't bother them. (Well, it might bother them, but they shouldn't be allowed to kill it completely. Just rename it.)
I'd say what corel needs is better marketing, and someone who can remember that Windows applications on wine are currently NOT a good bet for commerical systems. Wordperfect 8, based off of a unix version, is a nice application, reasonably lightweight and has enough features for me. Also, the cases are not directly related. Corel tries to make money off of software sales. As a consequence, their market share remains small, and they cannot compete with Word. If they were to go free and opensource, they would suddenly grab a huge market share. It won't happen, since they are out to make money and probably have the openmail problem of code spliced into their application, but it would work as far as satisfying people's basic needs.
To see what I mean, take a look at Abiword. That is an excellent example of a project giving people the features they use first, and if there is demand later more can be added. For a million people who pay for Office directly or indirectly, Abiword can do the job. For libraries or other cost sensitive environments where only the basics are needed, it is perfect.
I grant Illustrator is a different case, since most people who actually pay for it are graphics professionals who need lots of features, but don't underestimate the power of open source. It can surprise you. Also, the mere fact of a free license is a major feature, and major starting point, for open source software. Microsoft is finding that there is a certain segment of the market that they cannot possibly reach, since free tools are doing the job well enough. That's why they're worried. Apache is a good example - it doesn't have incredibly fast serving rates, but it is robust and gets the job done well. Adobe will be harder to match, because of the specialized nature of their software and the generally very high quality of their work, but as long as there are crazy geeks writing free code the world will continue to be amazed.
"The lawyers required that the University sign the cease and desist letter"
OK, this makes perfect sense. Adobe has a right to defend their trademark. To this point, I have no problem understanding them, or agreeing with them.
"destroy the kIllustrator-package"
This almost certainly comes from a background of commercial software, where one person controls the source. What do they mean by destroy? Here are three possibilities I can think of off the top of my head:
1) KIllustrator is not distributed by the University or author under that name. This is reasonable, if this is what they mean, but I don't think it is the most probable interpertation.
2) All copies of the software in the hands of the challenged parties are destroyed. Harsh, but also possible. In fact, likely.
3) Wipe the software from the face of the earth. Absolutely impossible. Under the GPL license, people can create derivative works from versions already existing, unless I have misunderstood the GPL. Even the authors themselves do not have the power to retract that freedom, once the code is licensed under GPL. Even if Adobe were to acquire copyright to the codebase, it wouldn't stop the versions already existing from forking into new projects. Which they almost certainly will, under a name Adobe can do nothing about.
(Incidently, those of you who worry about the fact that forking is allowe to occur in open source software, this is an ideal case illustrating why the risks are worth it.)
"name every KIllustrator user"
Again, absolutely impossible. Every developer who as used the code, and every end user? I'm quite sure no one has the faintest idea who all those people are. Someone needs to explain the concept of anonymous downloads. Also, the software is given away free, under GPL. No one has any right to tell people to stop using it. DISTRIBUTING it under that name, yes, but how can using it be an act of trademark violation? Why do they even care? Can someone who knows more about law please tell me why they are interested? (Not rhetorical - I'd really like to know.)
"and disclose the profit they made from it."
Uh - if you count development time and computer equipment, that's probably a fairly large negative number. Anyway, I doubt it can be calculated except on the presumption that there was revenue from somewhere. What else would lawyers mean? (Again not a rhetorical question.) If that is what they mean these guys have absolutely no clue what or who they are dealing with.
"Finally the lawyers sent a bill for 4686 DM (German Marks, approximately 2000 dollars) not counting value added tax."
I don't understand why this isn't Adobe's bill. If the legal system is set up such that lawyers only make money from stuff like this, it's no wonder we have frivilous lawsuits all over the place. This should be a routine part of their paid job for Adobe, if it's Adobe who wants this action taken. If it's ment to be a warning to others, they need to calm down and consider the possible consequences of this "warning" - namely a buch of open source coders determined to write software which will free them from having to pay money to a company who uses tatics like this as SOP. KIllustrator, even if they kill it, is not the only fish in this ocean. Sodipodi and Sketch come readily to mind. They may not be Illustrator yet, but the concept of "good enough" is not to be underestimated.
"Should the University not sign, the lawyers will sue for a million DM (approximately 400 thousand dollars)."
Please tell me that they would have to show this amount of damage has been done. Considering the attitude the courts displayed when Microsoft held up KOffice as competition, I would think 400,000 in damage is going to be just a bit tough to justify. Of course, I may be overestimating the legal system.
"Kai-Uwe Sattler is happy to change the name, but doesn't want to pay this bill. When he suggested changing the name, the lawyers rejected his proposal saying "Do you know any lawyer who works for nothing?" The lawyers insist on payment."
To nit-pick, I believe sometimes lawyers actually will take a case without pay. (It's rare, but I know someone who was helped in a difficult time in her life buy just such a kind soul.) Of couse that's beside the point, but I thought it worthwhile to call them on it - if they can nitpick, why can't we? Anyway the important part is that their only source of income is implied to be from this kind of thing, and not Adobe directly. Also, the attitude of the developer was not sounded out and apparently makes absolutely no difference. Brrrr.
"Sattler regrets that Adobe never contacted him before calling upon lawyers to ask him to change the name of his software."
I would very much like to know if this was Adobe's intention, or if this is some lawyers who just aren't on a leash. Right or not (and in the trademark matter I believe they have some justifible grounds) they are going to get a huge amount of bad press. They may be indifferent to the free software community at large, but this is a good way to inspire the competition of open source people. They may not be so indifferent if an open source Illustrator clone starts to eat away at market share.
What really worries me, however, is that this sets a precident for other action. Whatever Adobe's intent was, we need to be EXTREMELY careful from now on when naming open source products. If this action is effective, open source opponents *cough*Microsoft*cough* will adopt this as a standard technique. Time to get creative.
What I don't get is how will they know? Text is text is text, after all. If I write a C file and save it, who's to say where it was written? Auto indenting MIGHT give them a clue, but how or why would they prove it? Aren't there standard ways to indent code, regardless of editor?
"Hold it right there. If everyone here is always praising free software, then you can't turn around and claim that Adobe shouldn't treat this particular project with the same amount of seriousness as it would any other (commercial) competitor."
I'm not arguing that Adobe shouldn't have done something about this, but I still say they didn't need to do this. A huge fee on an individual, who is making no money off of this product, strikes me as harsh. They could simply have made the point of law and asked him to change it. Cleaner and more civil all around. Also, even if it was another commercial product, I can't condone the first communication about such an issue carrying fines and legal threats. Start out calm, and be nice until someone else is unreasonable. If they had made the point and he ignored them, that's something else again. Is that what happened? I don't get that impression from the lists.
"You don't know if KIllustrator is tomorrow's wonder-project, that everyone knows about (e.g. Linux kernel). If you can sing the praises of free software 24-hours a day, then Adobe has every right to treat this as a threat, and better to take care of it now then later. "
Of course it's a threat, but the response is disproportionate considering the magnitude of the threat. If Microsoft had tried something like this, it's a fair bet they are hostile and after your business. They are a real threat. KIllustrator may reach the level of Adobe's stuff someday (I hope that under a new name it does) but right now they are on a platform Adobe doesn't write for, not even close to the level of functionality Illustrator offers, and don't have a large user base (to the best of my knowledge). That's not what I'd call a short term threat, so the name issue could be handled simply and easily. Do you flick a bug off a plant, or hack at the bug (and plant) with a broadsword? Both do the job, but which one is the better way? (Also - another point. How long has Killustrator been using that name? If it took Adobe this long to even realise it was there, I'd say that doesn't make major threat category.) Yes, of course it should be changed, if your worried about AOL users getting mixed up. But I don't think this makes Adobe look like someone I'd want to deal with. They are too quick on the fine and law trigger. (Although I guess everyone is these days. Sigh.)
"People should stop ripping off names (and consequently, attempts at name-recognition) and do exactly what you suggest."
If the EFF wants to make themselves useful, they should compile a list of trademarked names which free software people couldn't use, and publish it. Actually, better yet, let's have the patent and trademark office do it. Give them something better to do than allow extremely broad patent ideas through all the time.
"(And imagine if Adobe tried to rippoff the name of a free-software project. Wouldn't all of/. be up in arms with pitch forks and torches?)"
Probably. Although, if you look through the highest moderated comments, the support here seems to be largely for Adobe. I agree with their reasons, I just disagree with the method. Though at this point (no offense guys) Adobe'd have to go insane before they'd want to grab our names.
Adobe seems to be much better than we are at that part of the game.
Actually, if I may end with a random observation, the percieved quality of the name seems directly related to the quality of the software. Framemaker wouldn't have struck me as a great name, hearing it for the first time. Nor, for that matter, would Word. Or Excel. Maybe I'm weird.
Alright, I guess I've wasted enough of the world's resources for one post.
Hopefully this isn't a double post. Anyway, I thought I'd throw these out: odds are no one would complain about conflicting with other names, and hopefully they have a little style. (Of course, they aren't descriptive, but I suspect all of those words are trademarked. If the programs are good enough they will define the associations.)
Killustrator - Krepario
Kword - Krescripti
Kspread - Krelamina
Kpresenter - Krepasten
Krayon - Kreimagio
and for Koffice itself - Ferramenta Libertas!
"This is, after all, the ENTIRE POINT of trademarks -- so that the customer knows what they are getting. For someone who isn't already familiar with the applications, KIllustrator and Illustrator could very well be the same thing."
While I agree with your basic statement, I should point out that Adobe is clearly treating this as a weapon, possible a weapon targeted specifically against free software. 2500 Euro? For some guy's spare time project? Cripes. I don't know what history this has, but you've got to admit if this is the first time this guy has heard from adobe they were pretty strong. This is a FREE application, written for a platform on which Adobe does not have commercial software, with relatively few end users, most of whom couldn't buy Illustrator if they wanted to and probably don't want to. If they had asked politely, stating their reasons, they probably would have gotten what they wanted. Instead, they come down on his neck with a large fine and from what I've heard (admittedly not everything) they sound in general like they think he is out dupe their end users. I never really liked the name Killustrator anyway, and I see no reason Adobe couldn't have been more polite. Yes they will achieve their aim, but in the process they will have seriously annoyed the Linux community. If you want to tick off computer users, for goodness sake don't tick off the people who just might one up your flagship products with free programs in order to teach you a lesson. Remote chance? Yes. Zero? No. Why not try to avoid being unplesant when possible? Most people try to AVOID fights rather than seeking them out. Adobe comes across as a bully. Manners don't hurt, even or especially if you are a corporation. They usually make you look better. People appreciate that kind of thing.
If this is how companies are going to try to kill free software, we need to establish a pool of good software names that no one has trademark claims to and nail them down. Fight fire with fire. I am still hesitant to totally bash adobe, since their work is generally good enough that they won't have to fear open source competition for a long time and I can't see them going to war without more reason, but the tone of this thing is disturbing. Then need to calm down just a bit. Defend trademarks, fine. Unnecessary lawsuits and threats, not fine. Those methods are a last resort, not a first step.
I tend to group BSD and Linux people togeather (despite the fact that many would strongly protest that) because they are the same basic type of people - out to create a good free software system and willing to get into the guts of a computer to do it. Despite being a Linux person, I will quite readily work with BSD. So you are correct, but that's how I was thinking. My apologies.
Yes, it is really good. There are a number of reasons for this.
1) Linux users tend to be highly technical people, and would almost certainly find uses for ACLs. They would put in the time to understand them properly, something (I suspect) many Windows NT people don't need or want to do. So the inclusion of ACLs in Samba might actually encourage better use of ACLs overall, as the unix people see the advantage and start to educate everyone else (especially whoever maintains the NT desktops.)
2) Corporate use is one of the key target markets for Linux, and the corporate market is a market much more likely than desktop users to want and need ACLs. The PHB will only know that it is new and cool, but the techs in the back room can put it to real use. Any selling point such as ACLs is to be desired, since use in business will provide both a steady market and educate people about open source.
3) More power in software is ALWAYS better than less power, unless it eats an insane amount of resources. This wouldn't.
4) It might put more pressure on the general open source population to update their permissions system, which is also a good thing.
You gotta admit it has more punch than "A computer on every desktop."
Although with Microsoft's historic instabilty I sort of wonder if way back when someone make a mistake and read it as "A desktop on every computer." It would explain a lot.
Tell them (politely) if that's their attitude, you will purchase your next printers elsewhere until Linux is a supported OS. If they feel it in the pocket book, they'll pay attention.
Really, I can understand that attitude - they don't know what a crappy driver might do to something. Just give them a financial incentive to support it.
.
Maxima rocks. There's an interface too, at http://symaxx.sourceforge.net, that has some interesting features. It may not be as flashy as Mathematica, but for school use it will do the job just fine. And unlike the student version of Mathematica, it doesn't be come illegal to use it when you are no longer a student.
(Pay HOW much to get software with a time bomb in the license? I'm on a student budget here. Even a hundred odd bucks means a lot.)
Check it out! Maxima can do symbolic integration, handle linear algebra stuff, plot 3D functions, and lots more. Symaxx (when working properly - it is in beta right now) can handle gnuplot stuff, output in TeX, map dependances between expressions (the interface is unique in my experience - take a look at a screenshot to see what I mean.)
Maxima is based on the same fundamental core that Macsyma was, before it folded. Macsyma's interface was super-cool, but all we can do now is start up our own open source projects around Maxima. Maybe someday we will equal and exceed the capabilities of the commercial packages, but even now Maxima will handle most stuff students would want to mess with.
The symaxx site has maxima RPMs for the most current version, and Debian users can get it using apt-get (I think the new one is in the unstable branch.) Symaxx itself is perl, so you don't need to compile it, but check the instll instructions because there are a few depends to take care of. If you don't care for symaxx, there is a tcl program called xmaxima included with 5.5. Us it rather than command line - the terminal command line interface of maxima needs work.
Pardon me, but nobody is paying large amounts of money for Linux unless they want to. Microsoft demands large hunks of cash, so they should be held to a standard. Linux is free. It makes a difference
While I can see why AOL wants to make sure they have add money coming in, and agree with that point, I hardly think that is their motivating factor. When MSN wanted to interface with AOL, they said no despite the fact that they could have worked out some add deal, and goodness knows MSN wouldn't have been reluctant about adds. I also see some sound reasons why AOL WOULDN'T want to do this - namely, it is unlikely that their add revenues from IM are their core bread and butter, and it is important to have as many people as possible connected to the system so people who are paying can talk to whoever they want. AOL has lots of subscribers who want to talk to people who aren't subscribers - it makes sense for AOL to provide that feature so people don't get inquisitive about what their friends are using.
Folks, this is about control. And the mere fact that this is an issue shows where the real problem lies.
Lets look at why we want to access AOL. Because they have millions of users who used all their computer savvy up just getting on AOL. We want to talk to these people (yes we have non-geek friends, so cork the comments) but can't convince them to make what is for them a nontrivial effort to get jabber working. AOL works well enough for them so that they don't want to mess with their computer which is now working to install unnecessary software (occasionally an adventure on Windows). That leaves us with the choice of bowing down to AOL or resorting to things like the phone and email.
When that choice presents itself, it points to a problem. AOL has too much control. Now, strictly speaking, it isn't AOL's fault. It's the fault of end users who are willing to get locked in. Same problem open source people have with Windows users. Unfortunately, most people just don't care enough about technology to fight it. Fact of life, and market reality. Those of us that do are a threat.
Because AOL likes this control. It means a VERY large captive audience, which means easy $$$$$. People who think too much about the system find ways to beat it. Either with programs like GAIM, or by being very annoying and coming up with something like jabber. So AOL fights by locking up their users. It's a bit of a risk, being a potential inconvenience, but realistically it turns out to be a small one. AOL has enough people signed up to get away with it.
I don't buy this whole thing about AOL did it so why shouldn't everyone else have to solve the same problems? AOL did not solve the problem of another AOL. They solved the problem of moving in where a vacuum existed. Winning over millions of people is easy when you don't have any serious competition. Problem is, once people are locked into a system, they don't change. That's why you want to keep systems open - so no one company can dominate.
I don't define valid open market success as controlling all of a market. That shouldn't be a valid goal. Note that I don't say they can't SELL to all of a market. But if a company begins to dominate to the point where they can shut other people out, the must open up if they want to continue to grow. Competition comes before outlandish individual success. It has to, if capitalism is to serve the public good (why it was created.)
No one company NEEDS to control everything. They would like to, because it makes things easy, but that's not why we have an economy. Hard work makes worthwhile things. People individually can reach the point where they can afford to rest, but companies shouldn't ever reach that point. They should always be hungry and striving for the next new and better thing. So if a company wants to grow to dominate an industry, it must be ensured that others can enter that industry with some hope of success. This keeps pressure on the leader to innovate, and allows fresh blood to sweap away an older, outdated system now and then. What if the inventors of the car had patented the idea of a steering wheel, so anyone wanting to build a new car had to use some other steering mechanism?
If AOL wants to dominate the industry, fine. But they can't be allow to be put in a position where they are more difficult to unseat than their market inertia warrants. They should always be fighting to maintain their market by making better quality products then the competition, not just being the 900 pound gorilla and sitting on them. If AOL doesn't like it, tough. They've had phenominal success already. Corporate greed is less important than the future of technology.
Ok folks, put paranoia aside for a second and consider rationally what this actually could mean. If they are going to commit the code to open source, that almost certainly means they don't dare try any tricks. Any tricks that they could hope to put in would have to be extremely subtle. As such, they would require a great deal of effort. Like all of us, their time is limited. And if their efforts were discovered, always a distinct possibility with open source, all that effort would be wasted since open source software is much more easily updated. Doesn't make any sense. Remember also, that *nix users are generally some of the more computer savvy users around. If you're going to try tricks, they're generally not the target you want to try them on. Windows users are on average more cooperative.
Then there is the other option - that they are sincere, they want a really secure operating system, they like the design and abilities (as well as as the lack of licensing issues) associated with Linux, and they are scratching their own itch for a really secure system by contributing this design and code. Once in a while the public interest happens to work well with some professional agendas. They may see Linux as a good group of people to harden the code with.
Consider, also, that if they are sincere with Linux users hammering on it they could probably create a STRONG solution, stronger than most other free software programmers. These guys know how it works. This could be a golden opportunity.
Geek dreams are made of things like super secure systems. I'm excited by this. Also, I think the threat, if any, is minimal If worse come to worse, Linus could include a compile option to not build it in - although I doubt it would be necessary. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, examine the code carefully for both our benefit and theirs, and do some cool stuff with it!
As near as I can tell, the format of a movie is ultimately going to make no difference as to whether or not it is pirated. Ultimately, if nothing else, people can just get a video camera and copy it that way. Rest assured, someone will. There are always people who will do that, if for no other reason than to spite the corporations. I think the MPAA needs to consider the fact that most people still prefer to watch a movie on a TV screen, not seated at a computer. I know I would't want to watch a movie at my computer. Stop worrying about the geeks - there's always a few. Just make sure that it is always worth people's while to get off the computer for a few hours (gasp) and watch the movie on hardware designed for that purpose. My computer has enough trouble with a desktop, never mind movies, and I know I'm not the only one.
I sort of suspect that the real reason there is so much noise about this is for the same reason napster got hit so hard - to prevent the establishment of a system through which independant artists can reach a large market. Control is everything. The MPAA probably is not keen on the idea of a worldwide team forming to do a movie across the internet, or any other challenge to their rule. Formats are merely a minor part of this fight, and to my mind not a terribly important one. Copy protection can't come from formats as long as they are eventually displayed in a form the human eye can observe. So develop new business models or remember that computers weren't designed for movie watching. These guys aren't stupid - I'm sure they've already spent far more protecting their copyrights online than they could have hoped to have gained from forcing a few geeks to pay for their movies. They're after something else. That's what worries me.
I'm worried about implimenting it safely. See my comments in response to one of the other posters below. You're right in that I should have been clearer in my initial post.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we could have some company pay the fee, look at the source, and then work with another team who has never seen the source to finish the WINE compatibility libraries. IIRC this is how the x86 clones were eventually made possible - a "clean room" engineering with some other guys who knew what was going on telling them if they were warm or cold as far as getting it right, but never telling them anything specific. Maybe we could unseat windows the same way IBM got nailed.
I suspect the list above will probably appear either on more lawsuits or on a proposed bill to Congress saying why copyright law must be even stricter and more harmful to creativity.
If you really want a music revolution, start a website which is central to free music everywhere, get some good servers, and only put music on it where you have the explicit permission of the authors and it isn't a derivative product (except things like satire.) Then for goodness sake have a peer review system which ranks each file. THAT will be a new revolution - not swiping their stuff, but plowing their who industry into the ground. Take a page from the open source book - don't break or ignore their rules, but use them as weapons against them. Artists can still make money off of live concerts, and if they choose to release their music in such a fashion it will basically make a statement to the world that they believe they are good enough not to need the RIAA to market them.
The counter to your arguement is that even if it is such an application, if it is well coded or contains interesting those ideas can be reused elsewhere. Very few tasks on computers are so specific that no one else will want to do them. There are too many computer users for that. Where I CAN see it is if there is some simulation work or something similar where confidential information must be used when writing the code, such as the physical characteristics and parameters of a new weapon or the details of a next generation supercar. THEN I can see closed source. But any application typically will have appeal somewhere. It's whether or not it's a good idea to let out your ideas that should decide it. Even if the application itself is never used, open source preserves ideas. That is it's real power. Even if in ten years we are all programming in smalltalk or something, we can still look at older code to find a solution to something or an elegant piece of code to base something off of, preventing us from reinventing the wheel. If was a good design, no reason for it not to be used again. If was bad, we can see why it was bad and work to avoid those mistakes. So while open source might not benefit one particular application, it will always benefit the community.
Uhh - I seriously doubt Berlin is either desirable or even a possibility for kernel inclusion. That would sort of be like sticking all of X into the kernel (although I don't think Berlin is anywhere near that big yet.) You REALLY don't want to put all of Berlin's stuff into a kernel - that's asking for trouble. You might be able to use KGI to create an in-kernel interface, but considering what happened to the stability of Windows when they tried that I'd recommend against it. Of course, more power to you if you try. There are a couple of X replacements besides Berlin being worked on which are smaller and maybe better suited for kernel work (fewer features, but depending on what you want...): http://dinx.sourceforge.net/ http://pgui.sourceforge.net/ http://microwindows.censoft.com/
This is an indication of a much larger problem we have with eduction in America. We are taught to USE things, not to UNDERSTAND things. In my NOT so humble opinion computers have no place in education before graduate school, unless they are taught as a subject in and of themselves, not as a substitute for thinking. In this I count TI and HP calculators as computers, how be it small and not really general purpose computers.
I am of this opinion for the simple reason that I have fallen into that trap. I did not have any experience of any note with computers before college, except for one programming class in high school where we used rather pathetic machines at school to work. We had no computer at home except a dedicated purpose word processor. My calculator was not capable of symbolic integration or any of the other nifty tricks that the 89 and 92 are capable of. EVEN SO, the calculator could do logs, roots, and other things that I still have no good intutitive feel for. We need to be less concerned with speed in our teaching and mroe concerned with quality. Basic principles and techniques that have been really learned, not just memorized for a test and forgotten, will be of far more use than quickly picking up a broad survey of concepts.
Students, most of them, don't really want to work hard. It's just not fun. That's where teachers and yes PARENTS need to impose a little disicipline. Not too much, because then it is only the threat of the whip which drives the kid and as soon as the whip is gone (college) the effort goes too. But external disicipline is extremely important in the early years. Just be sure that real learning takes place, and real benefits occur. And show the kid what these benefits are. Don't just say "It'll be of use to you in the future." That's fine for you, but a young kid has no concept of his future. He doesn't see the impact of the past on his present, because he hasn't had enought experience to note cause and effect in his own personal life. Show him/her what they've learned, be excited about it, and if they ask what good it is TELL them. Explain to them about the importance of understanding what's going on around you. Explain to them what science, engineering, and other mathematical endevours mean to their future. Don't assume they won't understand. Just be patient, don't underestimate them, and don't overestimate them. Encourage questions. Never belittle a child or scold him for asking a quetion again and again - if he/she really doesn't understand, you WANT them to keep asking rather than surrender to ignorance.
There is a stigma in American society that if you don't advance a grade each year, you are stupid and behind. Behind in what way? I'd say if you falsly promote a student up a grade they'll be behind all their life, not just a year. Yes, social pressures can be cruel. I've lived through being the oddball and nerdy one all my life, and been shunned and made fun of. But you at least learn when to listen to people and when not to. A useful trick, when you deal with hostile people out in the real world.
Actually, I dislike the use of the phrase "the real world" when applied to the world outside school. For a child, the school world can be horribly real. They are trapped there. All too often, real work ethic is ridiculed, and they get mixed messages from all sides. Parents are essential to provide a clear signal, but even they can do nothing when a student is on the playground being shunned.
I am becoming a huge supporter of home schooling. Have activities where childern interact with each other, but keep learning between the parent and child. Both people involved are thus committed to what needs to be done, and the child can work at his/her pace, whether or not that is faster or slower than average. Also, the parent can then make sure that real understanding and absorption are taking placce, not just memorizing.
And also at home, you can keep them free of electronic aids. I have no problem with computers being TAUGHT in education, but I have a big problem with them being USED in education. If schools want to teach computers, they should teach what makes them work, the history of computers, programming languages, and other basics. If they want to teach how to use computers, I have to pieces of advice. Do not teach any math, spelling or other "educational tool" software until college at the earliest, and do not teach just one system. Teach them to be flexible computer users. Explain how a computer virus works, why they need to worry about them, and how to think about security. Teach them the difference between OS and application, and introduce them to all kinds of both. Hard, you'd better believe it. But very much worthwhile.
I would dearly love to see slide rules come back as a tool in teaching. An intuitive understanding of the world is where fundamental breakthroughs come from. It's also a great source of pride and confidence. Slide rules help build intuition, because the user is involved with the process of solveing. A calculator has none of that.
It is probably too late for me - I doubt I will ever develop the intuitive grasp of the world that the great scientists of old had. Indeed, I seriously doubt most people who have let machines do any significant part of their thinking will. Has anyone noticed how large the precentage of foreign nationals is in our highest education setting, graduate school? So few Americans are there. We just don't have the interest, or the intuition, or the training to want to do it. We pride ourselves on being advanced, but the people responsible for so many of those advances used so many simple tools to learn, REALLY learn, the basics. No computers, no calculators. Pencil and paper, and maybe a slide rule. Basics students don't need more than three sig figs - they are learning BASICS.
Pardon the rant. But this is a serious problem. I think home schooling may become more and more the way to really teach students. Make learning a life long excitement, not something to finish and then do something else. We push too hard, too fast. We burn out. I know what that is too. We need to question both our means, and our ends. I pray that someday we will.
Calm down. A flame war won't help anyone. Your basic point is correct. I should have absorbed his point more thoroughly. (Posting close to midnight probably isn't the best thing to do.) Legally, you are correct, and I concede the point. However, from a broader point of view than the law, this is going to make Adobe look very bad in a lot of markets outside of Germany, whatever German law's traditions are. In the US and a lot of other places where this practice is not common, Adobe will come off looking like a bully. So, if the lawyers had considered the PR concerns of their employer, they should have controlled themselves, contacted Adobe to ask what moves they thought best to take in a potentially delicate situation, and see if Adobe wanted to volunteer to get their name ridiculed by a couple thousand very vocal critics across the world. (Assuming the lawyers had that much forsight - from what we are shown here I rather doubt it.) So from a legal standpoint, you are correct, and I should have noticed it, but from a broader viewpoint something like this should still be Adobe's bill. It would cost them a lot less than the ill will of the open source community, many of whom would be the type of high powered end users Adobe's products appeal to. If you check out the other posts as well, you will have seen some calls to boycott. If I recall, at Adobe's software prices, it would take about five people not buying Photoshop, or a few more than that not buying Illustrator, for this to become a bad financial decision on their part. Since Adobe is all about making money, they might want to give this a little more thought.
"I think for the GPL to take effect the person releasing a piece of software under it, would need to have the right to do so. E.g. if I were to somehow obtain the source for Adobe Illustrator and "release" it under GPL, nobody would actually gain the right to modify the code, as it was never legal for me to grant that right. "
Obviously correct. But not having written the code for Illustrator, you would have no rightful claim to it. In this case, we are talking about the author of KIllustrator. He might not have a right to the name, but since until now no one said anything to him, he certainly had a right to release his own work. Maybe the name wasn't a good idea, but the work itself he could release. He had full copyright on that at the time.
"So while the demands of these lawyers seem ludicrous they'd probably argue that it was never lawful to release the software in the first place."
I don't see how. Release it under that name, certainly. But the software itself isn't what they have a right to complain about, unless it violated patents or something like that. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, their problem is with trademark violation. Once that is gone, they shouldn't have any further complaint to make unless the name reappears. The SOFTWARE itself shouldn't bother them. (Well, it might bother them, but they shouldn't be allowed to kill it completely. Just rename it.)
I'd say what corel needs is better marketing, and someone who can remember that Windows applications on wine are currently NOT a good bet for commerical systems. Wordperfect 8, based off of a unix version, is a nice application, reasonably lightweight and has enough features for me. Also, the cases are not directly related. Corel tries to make money off of software sales. As a consequence, their market share remains small, and they cannot compete with Word. If they were to go free and opensource, they would suddenly grab a huge market share. It won't happen, since they are out to make money and probably have the openmail problem of code spliced into their application, but it would work as far as satisfying people's basic needs.
To see what I mean, take a look at Abiword. That is an excellent example of a project giving people the features they use first, and if there is demand later more can be added. For a million people who pay for Office directly or indirectly, Abiword can do the job. For libraries or other cost sensitive environments where only the basics are needed, it is perfect.
I grant Illustrator is a different case, since most people who actually pay for it are graphics professionals who need lots of features, but don't underestimate the power of open source. It can surprise you. Also, the mere fact of a free license is a major feature, and major starting point, for open source software. Microsoft is finding that there is a certain segment of the market that they cannot possibly reach, since free tools are doing the job well enough. That's why they're worried. Apache is a good example - it doesn't have incredibly fast serving rates, but it is robust and gets the job done well. Adobe will be harder to match, because of the specialized nature of their software and the generally very high quality of their work, but as long as there are crazy geeks writing free code the world will continue to be amazed.
See, that's what I'd like to know - how specifically they could do anything, without breaking the GPL in the process. Any ideas?
"The lawyers required that the University sign the cease and desist letter"
OK, this makes perfect sense. Adobe has a right to defend their trademark. To this point, I have no problem understanding them, or agreeing with them.
"destroy the kIllustrator-package"
This almost certainly comes from a background of commercial software, where one person controls the source. What do they mean by destroy? Here are three possibilities I can think of off the top of my head:
1) KIllustrator is not distributed by the University or author under that name. This is reasonable, if this is what they mean, but I don't think it is the most probable interpertation.
2) All copies of the software in the hands of the challenged parties are destroyed. Harsh, but also possible. In fact, likely.
3) Wipe the software from the face of the earth. Absolutely impossible. Under the GPL license, people can create derivative works from versions already existing, unless I have misunderstood the GPL. Even the authors themselves do not have the power to retract that freedom, once the code is licensed under GPL. Even if Adobe were to acquire copyright to the codebase, it wouldn't stop the versions already existing from forking into new projects. Which they almost certainly will, under a name Adobe can do nothing about.
(Incidently, those of you who worry about the fact that forking is allowe to occur in open source software, this is an ideal case illustrating why the risks are worth it.)
"name every KIllustrator user"
Again, absolutely impossible. Every developer who as used the code, and every end user? I'm quite sure no one has the faintest idea who all those people are. Someone needs to explain the concept of anonymous downloads. Also, the software is given away free, under GPL. No one has any right to tell people to stop using it. DISTRIBUTING it under that name, yes, but how can using it be an act of trademark violation? Why do they even care? Can someone who knows more about law please tell me why they are interested? (Not rhetorical - I'd really like to know.)
"and disclose the profit they made from it."
Uh - if you count development time and computer equipment, that's probably a fairly large negative number. Anyway, I doubt it can be calculated except on the presumption that there was revenue from somewhere. What else would lawyers mean? (Again not a rhetorical question.) If that is what they mean these guys have absolutely no clue what or who they are dealing with.
"Finally the lawyers sent a bill for 4686 DM (German Marks, approximately 2000 dollars) not counting value added tax."
I don't understand why this isn't Adobe's bill. If the legal system is set up such that lawyers only make money from stuff like this, it's no wonder we have frivilous lawsuits all over the place. This should be a routine part of their paid job for Adobe, if it's Adobe who wants this action taken. If it's ment to be a warning to others, they need to calm down and consider the possible consequences of this "warning" - namely a buch of open source coders determined to write software which will free them from having to pay money to a company who uses tatics like this as SOP. KIllustrator, even if they kill it, is not the only fish in this ocean. Sodipodi and Sketch come readily to mind. They may not be Illustrator yet, but the concept of "good enough" is not to be underestimated.
"Should the University not sign, the lawyers will sue for a million DM (approximately 400 thousand dollars)."
Please tell me that they would have to show this amount of damage has been done. Considering the attitude the courts displayed when Microsoft held up KOffice as competition, I would think 400,000 in damage is going to be just a bit tough to justify. Of course, I may be overestimating the legal system.
"Kai-Uwe Sattler is happy to change the name, but doesn't want to pay this bill. When he suggested changing the name, the lawyers rejected his proposal saying "Do you know any lawyer who works for nothing?" The lawyers insist on payment."
To nit-pick, I believe sometimes lawyers actually will take a case without pay. (It's rare, but I know someone who was helped in a difficult time in her life buy just such a kind soul.) Of couse that's beside the point, but I thought it worthwhile to call them on it - if they can nitpick, why can't we? Anyway the important part is that their only source of income is implied to be from this kind of thing, and not Adobe directly. Also, the attitude of the developer was not sounded out and apparently makes absolutely no difference. Brrrr.
"Sattler regrets that Adobe never contacted him before calling upon lawyers to ask him to change the name of his software."
I would very much like to know if this was Adobe's intention, or if this is some lawyers who just aren't on a leash. Right or not (and in the trademark matter I believe they have some justifible grounds) they are going to get a huge amount of bad press. They may be indifferent to the free software community at large, but this is a good way to inspire the competition of open source people. They may not be so indifferent if an open source Illustrator clone starts to eat away at market share.
What really worries me, however, is that this sets a precident for other action. Whatever Adobe's intent was, we need to be EXTREMELY careful from now on when naming open source products. If this action is effective, open source opponents *cough*Microsoft*cough* will adopt this as a standard technique. Time to get creative.
What I don't get is how will they know? Text is text is text, after all. If I write a C file and save it, who's to say where it was written? Auto indenting MIGHT give them a clue, but how or why would they prove it? Aren't there standard ways to indent code, regardless of editor?
"Hold it right there. If everyone here is always praising free software, then you can't turn around and claim that Adobe shouldn't treat this particular project with the same amount of seriousness as it would any other (commercial) competitor."
/. be up in arms with pitch forks and torches?)"
I'm not arguing that Adobe shouldn't have done something about this, but I still say they didn't need to do this. A huge fee on an individual, who is making no money off of this product, strikes me as harsh. They could simply have made the point of law and asked him to change it. Cleaner and more civil all around. Also, even if it was another commercial product, I can't condone the first communication about such an issue carrying fines and legal threats. Start out calm, and be nice until someone else is unreasonable. If they had made the point and he ignored them, that's something else again. Is that what happened? I don't get that impression from the lists.
"You don't know if KIllustrator is tomorrow's wonder-project, that everyone knows about (e.g. Linux kernel). If you can sing the praises of free software 24-hours a day, then Adobe has every right to treat this as a threat, and better to take care of it now then later. "
Of course it's a threat, but the response is disproportionate considering the magnitude of the threat. If Microsoft had tried something like this, it's a fair bet they are hostile and after your business. They are a real threat. KIllustrator may reach the level of Adobe's stuff someday (I hope that under a new name it does) but right now they are on a platform Adobe doesn't write for, not even close to the level of functionality Illustrator offers, and don't have a large user base (to the best of my knowledge). That's not what I'd call a short term threat, so the name issue could be handled simply and easily. Do you flick a bug off a plant, or hack at the bug (and plant) with a broadsword? Both do the job, but which one is the better way? (Also - another point. How long has Killustrator been using that name? If it took Adobe this long to even realise it was there, I'd say that doesn't make major threat category.) Yes, of course it should be changed, if your worried about AOL users getting mixed up. But I don't think this makes Adobe look like someone I'd want to deal with. They are too quick on the fine and law trigger. (Although I guess everyone is these days. Sigh.)
"People should stop ripping off names (and consequently, attempts at name-recognition) and do exactly what you suggest."
If the EFF wants to make themselves useful, they should compile a list of trademarked names which free software people couldn't use, and publish it. Actually, better yet, let's have the patent and trademark office do it. Give them something better to do than allow extremely broad patent ideas through all the time.
"(And imagine if Adobe tried to rippoff the name of a free-software project. Wouldn't all of
Probably. Although, if you look through the highest moderated comments, the support here seems to be largely for Adobe. I agree with their reasons, I just disagree with the method. Though at this point (no offense guys) Adobe'd have to go insane before they'd want to grab our names.
Adobe seems to be much better than we are at that part of the game.
Actually, if I may end with a random observation, the percieved quality of the name seems directly related to the quality of the software. Framemaker wouldn't have struck me as a great name, hearing it for the first time. Nor, for that matter, would Word. Or Excel. Maybe I'm weird.
Alright, I guess I've wasted enough of the world's resources for one post.
Hopefully this isn't a double post. Anyway, I thought I'd throw these out: odds are no one would complain about conflicting with other names, and hopefully they have a little style. (Of course, they aren't descriptive, but I suspect all of those words are trademarked. If the programs are good enough they will define the associations.) Killustrator - Krepario Kword - Krescripti Kspread - Krelamina Kpresenter - Krepasten Krayon - Kreimagio and for Koffice itself - Ferramenta Libertas!
"This is, after all, the ENTIRE POINT of trademarks -- so that the customer knows what they are getting. For someone who isn't already familiar with the applications, KIllustrator and Illustrator could very well be the same thing."
While I agree with your basic statement, I should point out that Adobe is clearly treating this as a weapon, possible a weapon targeted specifically against free software. 2500 Euro? For some guy's spare time project? Cripes. I don't know what history this has, but you've got to admit if this is the first time this guy has heard from adobe they were pretty strong. This is a FREE application, written for a platform on which Adobe does not have commercial software, with relatively few end users, most of whom couldn't buy Illustrator if they wanted to and probably don't want to. If they had asked politely, stating their reasons, they probably would have gotten what they wanted. Instead, they come down on his neck with a large fine and from what I've heard (admittedly not everything) they sound in general like they think he is out dupe their end users. I never really liked the name Killustrator anyway, and I see no reason Adobe couldn't have been more polite. Yes they will achieve their aim, but in the process they will have seriously annoyed the Linux community. If you want to tick off computer users, for goodness sake don't tick off the people who just might one up your flagship products with free programs in order to teach you a lesson. Remote chance? Yes. Zero? No. Why not try to avoid being unplesant when possible? Most people try to AVOID fights rather than seeking them out. Adobe comes across as a bully. Manners don't hurt, even or especially if you are a corporation. They usually make you look better. People appreciate that kind of thing.
If this is how companies are going to try to kill free software, we need to establish a pool of good software names that no one has trademark claims to and nail them down. Fight fire with fire. I am still hesitant to totally bash adobe, since their work is generally good enough that they won't have to fear open source competition for a long time and I can't see them going to war without more reason, but the tone of this thing is disturbing. Then need to calm down just a bit. Defend trademarks, fine. Unnecessary lawsuits and threats, not fine. Those methods are a last resort, not a first step.
Or anyway, they should be.
Oh, wait, that's cars, isn't it. No wonder I can't get any dates.
I tend to group BSD and Linux people togeather (despite the fact that many would strongly protest that) because they are the same basic type of people - out to create a good free software system and willing to get into the guts of a computer to do it. Despite being a Linux person, I will quite readily work with BSD. So you are correct, but that's how I was thinking. My apologies.
Yes, it is really good. There are a number of reasons for this.
1) Linux users tend to be highly technical people, and would almost certainly find uses for ACLs. They would put in the time to understand them properly, something (I suspect) many Windows NT people don't need or want to do. So the inclusion of ACLs in Samba might actually encourage better use of ACLs overall, as the unix people see the advantage and start to educate everyone else (especially whoever maintains the NT desktops.)
2) Corporate use is one of the key target markets for Linux, and the corporate market is a market much more likely than desktop users to want and need ACLs. The PHB will only know that it is new and cool, but the techs in the back room can put it to real use. Any selling point such as ACLs is to be desired, since use in business will provide both a steady market and educate people about open source.
3) More power in software is ALWAYS better than less power, unless it eats an insane amount of resources. This wouldn't.
4) It might put more pressure on the general open source population to update their permissions system, which is also a good thing.
You gotta admit it has more punch than "A computer on every desktop."
Although with Microsoft's historic instabilty I sort of wonder if way back when someone make a mistake and read it as "A desktop on every computer." It would explain a lot.
Tell them (politely) if that's their attitude, you will purchase your next printers elsewhere until Linux is a supported OS. If they feel it in the pocket book, they'll pay attention.
Really, I can understand that attitude - they don't know what a crappy driver might do to something. Just give them a financial incentive to support it.
.
Maxima rocks. There's an interface too, at http://symaxx.sourceforge.net, that has some interesting features. It may not be as flashy as Mathematica, but for school use it will do the job just fine. And unlike the student version of Mathematica, it doesn't be come illegal to use it when you are no longer a student.
(Pay HOW much to get software with a time bomb in the license? I'm on a student budget here. Even a hundred odd bucks means a lot.)
Check it out! Maxima can do symbolic integration, handle linear algebra stuff, plot 3D functions, and lots more. Symaxx (when working properly - it is in beta right now) can handle gnuplot stuff, output in TeX, map dependances between expressions (the interface is unique in my experience - take a look at a screenshot to see what I mean.)
Maxima is based on the same fundamental core that Macsyma was, before it folded. Macsyma's interface was super-cool, but all we can do now is start up our own open source projects around Maxima. Maybe someday we will equal and exceed the capabilities of the commercial packages, but even now Maxima will handle most stuff students would want to mess with.
The symaxx site has maxima RPMs for the most current version, and Debian users can get it using apt-get (I think the new one is in the unstable branch.) Symaxx itself is perl, so you don't need to compile it, but check the instll instructions because there are a few depends to take care of. If you don't care for symaxx, there is a tcl program called xmaxima included with 5.5. Us it rather than command line - the terminal command line interface of maxima needs work.
Pardon me, but nobody is paying large amounts of money for Linux unless they want to. Microsoft demands large hunks of cash, so they should be held to a standard. Linux is free. It makes a difference
While I can see why AOL wants to make sure they have add money coming in, and agree with that point, I hardly think that is their motivating factor. When MSN wanted to interface with AOL, they said no despite the fact that they could have worked out some add deal, and goodness knows MSN wouldn't have been reluctant about adds. I also see some sound reasons why AOL WOULDN'T want to do this - namely, it is unlikely that their add revenues from IM are their core bread and butter, and it is important to have as many people as possible connected to the system so people who are paying can talk to whoever they want. AOL has lots of subscribers who want to talk to people who aren't subscribers - it makes sense for AOL to provide that feature so people don't get inquisitive about what their friends are using.
Folks, this is about control. And the mere fact that this is an issue shows where the real problem lies.
Lets look at why we want to access AOL. Because they have millions of users who used all their computer savvy up just getting on AOL. We want to talk to these people (yes we have non-geek friends, so cork the comments) but can't convince them to make what is for them a nontrivial effort to get jabber working. AOL works well enough for them so that they don't want to mess with their computer which is now working to install unnecessary software (occasionally an adventure on Windows). That leaves us with the choice of bowing down to AOL or resorting to things like the phone and email.
When that choice presents itself, it points to a problem. AOL has too much control. Now, strictly speaking, it isn't AOL's fault. It's the fault of end users who are willing to get locked in. Same problem open source people have with Windows users. Unfortunately, most people just don't care enough about technology to fight it. Fact of life, and market reality. Those of us that do are a threat.
Because AOL likes this control. It means a VERY large captive audience, which means easy $$$$$. People who think too much about the system find ways to beat it. Either with programs like GAIM, or by being very annoying and coming up with something like jabber. So AOL fights by locking up their users. It's a bit of a risk, being a potential inconvenience, but realistically it turns out to be a small one. AOL has enough people signed up to get away with it.
I don't buy this whole thing about AOL did it so why shouldn't everyone else have to solve the same problems? AOL did not solve the problem of another AOL. They solved the problem of moving in where a vacuum existed. Winning over millions of people is easy when you don't have any serious competition. Problem is, once people are locked into a system, they don't change. That's why you want to keep systems open - so no one company can dominate.
I don't define valid open market success as controlling all of a market. That shouldn't be a valid goal. Note that I don't say they can't SELL to all of a market. But if a company begins to dominate to the point where they can shut other people out, the must open up if they want to continue to grow. Competition comes before outlandish individual success. It has to, if capitalism is to serve the public good (why it was created.)
No one company NEEDS to control everything. They would like to, because it makes things easy, but that's not why we have an economy. Hard work makes worthwhile things. People individually can reach the point where they can afford to rest, but companies shouldn't ever reach that point. They should always be hungry and striving for the next new and better thing. So if a company wants to grow to dominate an industry, it must be ensured that others can enter that industry with some hope of success. This keeps pressure on the leader to innovate, and allows fresh blood to sweap away an older, outdated system now and then. What if the inventors of the car had patented the idea of a steering wheel, so anyone wanting to build a new car had to use some other steering mechanism?
If AOL wants to dominate the industry, fine. But they can't be allow to be put in a position where they are more difficult to unseat than their market inertia warrants. They should always be fighting to maintain their market by making better quality products then the competition, not just being the 900 pound gorilla and sitting on them. If AOL doesn't like it, tough. They've had phenominal success already. Corporate greed is less important than the future of technology.
Ok folks, put paranoia aside for a second and consider rationally what this actually could mean. If they are going to commit the code to open source, that almost certainly means they don't dare try any tricks. Any tricks that they could hope to put in would have to be extremely subtle. As such, they would require a great deal of effort. Like all of us, their time is limited. And if their efforts were discovered, always a distinct possibility with open source, all that effort would be wasted since open source software is much more easily updated. Doesn't make any sense. Remember also, that *nix users are generally some of the more computer savvy users around. If you're going to try tricks, they're generally not the target you want to try them on. Windows users are on average more cooperative.
Then there is the other option - that they are sincere, they want a really secure operating system, they like the design and abilities (as well as as the lack of licensing issues) associated with Linux, and they are scratching their own itch for a really secure system by contributing this design and code. Once in a while the public interest happens to work well with some professional agendas. They may see Linux as a good group of people to harden the code with.
Consider, also, that if they are sincere with Linux users hammering on it they could probably create a STRONG solution, stronger than most other free software programmers. These guys know how it works. This could be a golden opportunity.
Geek dreams are made of things like super secure systems. I'm excited by this. Also, I think the threat, if any, is minimal If worse come to worse, Linus could include a compile option to not build it in - although I doubt it would be necessary. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, examine the code carefully for both our benefit and theirs, and do some cool stuff with it!
As near as I can tell, the format of a movie is ultimately going to make no difference as to whether or not it is pirated. Ultimately, if nothing else, people can just get a video camera and copy it that way. Rest assured, someone will. There are always people who will do that, if for no other reason than to spite the corporations. I think the MPAA needs to consider the fact that most people still prefer to watch a movie on a TV screen, not seated at a computer. I know I would't want to watch a movie at my computer. Stop worrying about the geeks - there's always a few. Just make sure that it is always worth people's while to get off the computer for a few hours (gasp) and watch the movie on hardware designed for that purpose. My computer has enough trouble with a desktop, never mind movies, and I know I'm not the only one.
I sort of suspect that the real reason there is so much noise about this is for the same reason napster got hit so hard - to prevent the establishment of a system through which independant artists can reach a large market. Control is everything. The MPAA probably is not keen on the idea of a worldwide team forming to do a movie across the internet, or any other challenge to their rule. Formats are merely a minor part of this fight, and to my mind not a terribly important one. Copy protection can't come from formats as long as they are eventually displayed in a form the human eye can observe. So develop new business models or remember that computers weren't designed for movie watching. These guys aren't stupid - I'm sure they've already spent far more protecting their copyrights online than they could have hoped to have gained from forcing a few geeks to pay for their movies. They're after something else. That's what worries me.
I'm worried about implimenting it safely. See my comments in response to one of the other posters below. You're right in that I should have been clearer in my initial post.