If I don't hear any, I'm going to have to guess that I didn't miss a thing about Microsoft's 'Open XML' licenceing issues. (Still very curious why MS did not challenge the comment that the licence was for a read-only version of the format for viewers and not read/write (another seperate licence if it is available at all).
Listen to the linked Mass. meeting that a MS rep attended.
Bit torrent offers an alternative download stratergies for sites that cant cope with huge download requirements. This kind of attack means they can be targetted. Is this a complaint that will convince you?
If it's a way to take down Torrent users and indexes that are trading in Linux ISOs, I'm convinced. If it's to block trading in Revenge of the Sith, I'm not.
Granted, the MPAA & RIAA have poor track records. That alone is enough to make me keep an eye on this but not necessarily to worry. The lawsuits do, though, piss me off. Not good PR.
MS XML is completely documented, and not "patent encumbered". You just have to get the license from MS directly (rather than getting it as a "sublicense" from another party that got the license from MS directly), and have to provide some attribution in your software saying that you're using the MS format. The license is free, so I don't see what the problem is.
If the format does not have patent encumberances, what are they licencing? Something doesn't smell right.
Is Word XML the same format as 'MS Office Open XML'? I was under the impression that they were different, and that MS Office 12 would be the first to support 'MS Office Open XML'.
(Note that 'MS Office Open XML' is patent encumbered and not completely documented; it's not completely 'open'.)
Because while most of the/. community is in favor of OpenDoc and OpenThis and OpenThat, everyone else just wants their shit to work. And that's exactly what Microsoft provides.
This could be a very dangerous thing to claim. Let us say that in a year, KOffice is not running on Windows. This claim has now left the KOffice team in a very difficult position. They have no choice now but to include support for Windows within a year. Otherwise Microsoft and others could point to this letter as being a work of deception.
I think they are just waiting for both QT4 & KDE 4 before doing a complete port. Ports using Cygwin and Colinux are being worked on in the meantime.
Can't you just filter on 'if no other filter catches this...give it the not-labeled label'?
Evolution by default has an Unmatched folder, though you could add a similar result if the filtering system has been thought through to just about any similar system.
I have a good chance to include the OpenOffice format (specifically, a reference to the Oasis Open Document specification), as part of a specification for a US Federal Government system. The current specification includes MS Office formats as acceptable document formats for reports, etc...and OpenDocument would be inserted along with MS Office as an acceptable report format. This specification will be the basis for a few more related specifications.
What I need are references to other US federal (preferred), US state/local, or non-US government use of OpenOffice (the app) or OpenDocument (the Oasis document standard). The higher profile the better.
So far, I've scraped up a couple references but not enough to make a simple and direct case for the inclusion of OpenDocument. (The practical and technical benifits are not always a good argument to make...who's using what seems to be more effective.)
The irony, of course, is that Microsoft really is working at reducing the need for "leech" companies such as Symantec which feed off its flaws. Each successive release of MS Windows is a blow to the relevance of "security" purveyors like Symantec.
On a serious note, what makes you think security is increasing? With added complexity comes defects...and applications to operating systems are constantly getting more complex.
It isn't whether someone can write a virus/worm/trojan. It's whether they can get such onto your box.
No doubt. Symantec used to create valuable products. I can't say that these days. It all seems to be scare tactics and insisting that they are in an important software category; they aren't... and the category isn't security btw!
Complex table issues have been addressed quite a bit in OOo v.2.
Some oddities will remain, though.
For example, if you highlight something (say, mark a word yellow) in OpenOffice, you can't change it with the same tool under Word. You have to use the formatting paintbrush. Why? Word has 2 seperate levels of highlighting while OpenOffice has one. Got me why Word benifits from 2 different types of highlighting...but it has them. This difference is an artifact of Word.
I consider myself to be a non-partisan technologist, meaning I'll use whatever platform or software that best fits the needs of the company, but what a lot of FOSS proponents seem incapable of grasping is that there's more to software and OS's than "power" and "technical elegance." There's user inteface design, documentation, and consistent professional support to be considered in any enterprise implementation. Saying that Bob's XYZ Library of Useful Widgets can do it all just as well as Bill & Steve's Really Expensive Library of Useful Widgets is only part of this equation. Just writing the damned software and slapping it in an RPM does not finish the project!
While all that is true, I'm currently saddled with using this monstrosity. It has failures that I do not encounter with viable OSS.
It suceeds in two places;
1. The answer to the question "Does it do X, Y, or Z?" is YES. Lots of features for the check lists.
2. It has job security written all over it; The learning curve and quirks the program has are so excessive, you can not make practical use of it without 1-2 dedicated personell who do nothing but learn the tool and tune it.
Keep in mind that these are positive aspects of the application . The rest is worse than any.08 OSS release I've encountered -- and unless you are willing to pay daily on-site professional fees, you can forget about support.
I've had to correct the tech support folks at that company a few times who were unaware of defects^ I encountered...after being told like a child to read the documentation (about 1,200 pages total). The documentation is technically correct for a limited number of configurations and leads me in the wrong direction as often as it is helpful. I don't refer to the forum or FAQs as the forum doesn't exist, and the FAQs are just extra formal documentation...and aren't questions I'm asking.
If this specific tool -- a requirements management tool -- weren't a requirment by the customer (who doesn't even know what the contract details are and has lost control of all internal documentation), I would recommend strongly against using it. As they require tool, I'm going to learn it. I'll probably even recommend that other contracting groups adopt it when dealing with the customer so we can exchange data...but not because it's a good tool. It's good at lock-in.
Selecting a propriatory tool isn't all peaches and cream. Why should OSS be criticized for not exceeding the propriatory tool, all things considred?
(^ Note: The defects are discoverable if a VV&T process using a dozen or fewer configurations created using a logic table; Installed/not, DB installed/not, DB on server/DB local,... . They didn't spend the time to make it better.)
...lack of physical security means lack of assurance of any security.
If you don't control the laptops, don't trust them to behave. Design your network and servers -- the things you can control -- with the idea that they can be 'attacked' from anywhere; Internet or intranet.
From what I understand, Linux doesn't lock the files like Windows. You can overwrite a file that's already open, and all new opens of that file will use the new contents. I've certainly never seen an error like: "cp: Error: Unable to copy file - destination file locked" or similar.
Inodes are a feature of all file systems under UNIX and unix-like systems including Linux. When you access a file, it's 'locked' in that it will not vanish on the process that opens it...yet, each process has a different inode.
Because of that, you can have one program that moves a file, another that deletes the 'same' file, and yet another that is currently editing the file. Each has a different inode. The result is that you can update a program, for example, and not have to exit it...but still fire up the new version!
....just when I couldn't think of another way to get the current incarnation of the US Government hated by every other country on the planet, they do this!
The opportunity to really, truely, terrify everyone on the whole planet! What a master stroke! OH JOY -- WHEN WILL IT EVER END???
Slashdot Mirror
If I don't hear any, I'm going to have to guess that I didn't miss a thing about Microsoft's 'Open XML' licenceing issues. (Still very curious why MS did not challenge the comment that the licence was for a read-only version of the format for viewers and not read/write (another seperate licence if it is available at all).
Listen to the linked Mass. meeting that a MS rep attended.
If it's a way to take down Torrent users and indexes that are trading in Linux ISOs, I'm convinced. If it's to block trading in Revenge of the Sith, I'm not.
Granted, the MPAA & RIAA have poor track records. That alone is enough to make me keep an eye on this but not necessarily to worry. The lawsuits do, though, piss me off. Not good PR.
If the format does not have patent encumberances, what are they licencing? Something doesn't smell right.
If it's content that is normally paid for...I don't see any problem.
Maybe someone can make an argument I understand...
Is Word XML the same format as 'MS Office Open XML'? I was under the impression that they were different, and that MS Office 12 would be the first to support 'MS Office Open XML'.
(Note that 'MS Office Open XML' is patent encumbered and not completely documented; it's not completely 'open'.)
It's not that simple. Go listen to this.
Thank you for supporting OpenDocument Import now and for having plans for supporting export to OpenDocument.
I think they are just waiting for both QT4 & KDE 4 before doing a complete port. Ports using Cygwin and Colinux are being worked on in the meantime.
I'm sure there's a Greasemonkey script to do what you want...if not, maybe you can whip one up?
Evolution by default has an Unmatched folder, though you could add a similar result if the filtering system has been thought through to just about any similar system.
Scrapbook is what I wanted when bookmarks first came out. Very slick.
I have to agree with Shani -- the web site is a deal killer. I couldn't get anyone I know to consider LyX over Word if I sent them to the web site.
Lots of excellent answers...thanks everyone for the help!
I have a good chance to include the OpenOffice format (specifically, a reference to the Oasis Open Document specification), as part of a specification for a US Federal Government system. The current specification includes MS Office formats as acceptable document formats for reports, etc...and OpenDocument would be inserted along with MS Office as an acceptable report format. This specification will be the basis for a few more related specifications.
What I need are references to other US federal (preferred), US state/local, or non-US government use of OpenOffice (the app) or OpenDocument (the Oasis document standard). The higher profile the better.
So far, I've scraped up a couple references but not enough to make a simple and direct case for the inclusion of OpenDocument. (The practical and technical benifits are not always a good argument to make...who's using what seems to be more effective.)
Are you really sure that they are serious about security? Looks like they have some leach like qualities themselves!
OH! An optimist! :)
On a serious note, what makes you think security is in creasing? With added complexity comes defects...and applications to operating systems are constantly getting more complex.
It isn't whether someone can write a virus/worm/trojan. It's whether they can get such onto your box.
No doubt. Symantec used to create valuable products. I can't say that these days. It all seems to be scare tactics and insisting that they are in an important software category; they aren't ... and the category isn't security btw!
Some oddities will remain, though.
For example, if you highlight something (say, mark a word yellow) in OpenOffice, you can't change it with the same tool under Word. You have to use the formatting paintbrush. Why? Word has 2 seperate levels of highlighting while OpenOffice has one. Got me why Word benifits from 2 different types of highlighting...but it has them. This difference is an artifact of Word.
My biggest gripe is that some of the relly good programs have names like this.
(Try selling that one to a manager just on your force of argument without using the acronym DCL instead of the full name!)
While all that is true, I'm currently saddled with using this monstrosity. It has failures that I do not encounter with viable OSS.
It suceeds in two places;
1. The answer to the question "Does it do X, Y, or Z?" is YES. Lots of features for the check lists.
2. It has job security written all over it; The learning curve and quirks the program has are so excessive, you can not make practical use of it without 1-2 dedicated personell who do nothing but learn the tool and tune it.
Keep in mind that these are positive aspects of the application . The rest is worse than any .08 OSS release I've encountered -- and unless you are willing to pay daily on-site professional fees, you can forget about support.
I've had to correct the tech support folks at that company a few times who were unaware of defects^ I encountered...after being told like a child to read the documentation (about 1,200 pages total). The documentation is technically correct for a limited number of configurations and leads me in the wrong direction as often as it is helpful. I don't refer to the forum or FAQs as the forum doesn't exist, and the FAQs are just extra formal documentation...and aren't questions I'm asking.
If this specific tool -- a requirements management tool -- weren't a requirment by the customer (who doesn't even know what the contract details are and has lost control of all internal documentation), I would recommend strongly against using it. As they require tool, I'm going to learn it. I'll probably even recommend that other contracting groups adopt it when dealing with the customer so we can exchange data...but not because it's a good tool. It's good at lock-in.
Selecting a propriatory tool isn't all peaches and cream. Why should OSS be criticized for not exceeding the propriatory tool, all things considred?
(^ Note: The defects are discoverable if a VV&T process using a dozen or fewer configurations created using a logic table; Installed/not, DB installed/not, DB on server/DB local, ... . They didn't spend the time to make it better.)
If you don't control the laptops, don't trust them to behave. Design your network and servers -- the things you can control -- with the idea that they can be 'attacked' from anywhere; Internet or intranet.
If you have an app that loads 3 libraries, it has 3 different and unique inodes.
If another program loads the same libraries, that program has 3 different and unique inodes...for a total of 6 inodes between the two programs.
Inodes are a feature of all file systems under UNIX and unix-like systems including Linux. When you access a file, it's 'locked' in that it will not vanish on the process that opens it...yet, each process has a different inode.
Because of that, you can have one program that moves a file, another that deletes the 'same' file, and yet another that is currently editing the file. Each has a different inode. The result is that you can update a program, for example, and not have to exit it...but still fire up the new version!
Here are a few notes on this nifty feature;
http://www-1g.cs.luc.edu/~van/cs219/lect0/
http://www.unix.org.ua/orelly/networking/puis/ch 05_01.htm
Tnakhs! Il'l hvae to rmmeeber taht tcirk!
sYe, lsnhEgi si rperrosu ot tniaL. ouY cnoatn manlge glEihsn oto hucm efrobe ti rtnsu onit tuetr nesnsnoe!
The opportunity to really, truely, terrify everyone on the whole planet! What a master stroke! OH JOY -- WHEN WILL IT EVER END???