I for one hope we NEVER get to see those al-Qaeda slime make an "offensive move rather than mere proselytizing." I cannot seriously believe you're suggesting that we should wait for a serious attack before we try to do anything to stop it. I for one am thankful that this guy was stopped before it escalated much further.
I think this Web 2.0 application right here, which was recently bought by Google, will probably be the best of what the competition has for a solution to your problem. Once again, we see that Microsoft no longer has a monopoly on such ideas. This is why I hope Google continues to improve Writely, and why I hope they'll eventually buy this web app, too. Mark my words, Google is gearing up for a direct assault on Microsoft's "cash cow!" And if Google works on ODF support in Writely, I am willing to wager it will be far more open than Microsoft Office, too. These kinds of developments are PRECISELY why Microsoft wanted to kill Netscape, why they now want to f___ing kill Google, and why they have been so desperately trying to make their new Windows Live portal *THE* platform of the web. In order to maintain their dominance with Windows, they know that they must find some way to make the Internet dependent on their proprietary technologies and platforms, so that they can continue to dominate and lock people in. Time will tell if Google will be able to beat them or not... But mark my words, Microsoft is DOWN, but *NOT* out. They are still a force to be reckoned with, and last time I checked, they still control more than 90% of the desktop OS market, and more than 70% of the web browser market. DO NOT DISCOUNT MICROSOFT.
Umm... shouldn't they *always* be doing this? Things like, oh, gathering requirements, modeling business processes, developing RFP's, assessing vendor and/or open source softwares capabilities?
Yes, of course they should, and that's EXACTLY the point being made here: If a small, fledgling enterprise like MySQL or JBoss gets bought by a company like Oracle or IBM, this is bound to create some uncertainty about the future direction of the said projects (at least, until the new owner makes clear what he intends to do with his newly purchased assets).
I don't know about you, but if I were in charge of purchasing/IT decisions at a large company with mission critical needs, I would DEFINITELY be a little bit concerned about the open source enterprise that had just been bought. I would be a bit concerned whether this happened to a proprietary OR an open source solution. It's all very well to say "oh, the community is bound to fill in the gaps," but WHEN, and AT WHAT COST?? Writing a new project from scratch could take months, maybe YEARS... Alright, so supposing they FORK from the original project... It might not take as long for it to mature that way, but nonetheless, it would still (in the short term) create even MORE uncertainty about the future project direction. A big business with mission critical needs can NOT afford to allow this kind of uncertainty to run amok. They want a STABLE, PREDICTABLE direction, and they want it NOW, not FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. It is perfectly understandable that someone would say, "Microsoft is a big $60 billion company, and they're far more likely to provide a stable long-term roadmap than this LMTM project by some guy who calls himself ZuperDee, and posts on some site called Slashdot all the time."
I can tell you many people couldn't believe that thing could actually run without crashing after 5 minutes of us.
I couldn't believe it either, because for me, NS 4.x actually did crash after 5 minutes of use, most of the time.
I can't help but wonder...
on
ReactOS Code Audit
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1) If it is going to take them YEARS to do this audit, surely it will take MS just as long to audit it to find the infringing bits. But even supposing MS found infringing bits tomorrow, what good would it do MS to sue anyone? I doubt MS would do that right now, because ReactOS is obviously not anywhere NEAR the point yet where it is widely used, let alone useful for daily tasks like surfing the web or writing a document. Surely MS would have little (if anything) to gain from a business perspective by suing people just yet. If ReactOS suddenly became useful like Windows though, I'm sure that may change.
2) Since a lot of the development effort on ReactOS is shared with WINE and vice-versa, I wonder if this could affect WINE, too. MS already has acknowledged WINE's existence by checking specifically for WINE registry settings in things like their Genuine Advantage program, but they obviously haven't sued anyone over that yet, either.
Seriously, I think anyone who discounts Microsoft or doesn't fear them at this point, or who says "their star seems to be fading" needs to look around again. For some time now, there have been some saying that Microsoft is becoming increasingly irrelevant, now that we have companies like Google.
But to anyone thinks this way, I warn you: some people once thought Netscape and the World Wide Web might make Microsoft irrelevant. Others once thought Java might make Microsoft irrelevant. Some once thought Apple might dethrone Microsoft. Some once thought the Playstation would kill Microsoft. I am willing to concede that the verdict may not be in on the last two points yet, but the XBox 360 is sure making headway in that market, and the iPod, though still the most popular MP3 player, is clearly by NO means secure in its position at this point, as competing music stores AND players are continually nipping at Apple's heels.
But my point is simply this: In EVERY case but the last two, Microsoft successfully thwarted or killed those technologies, sometimes only after quite a while of making blunders. Though it may have taken a couple years, Internet Explorer ultimately killed Netscape. Java, though still widely used, appears to be stagnating, not growing, as.NET slowly but surely keeps gaining more and more momentum. And Apple, though they may currently have the dominant MP3 player, are still slowly getting nipped at their heels by competitors, and it is beginning to look like their dominance may begin to fade at any moment... And the Macintosh continues to face shrinking market share, to the point where there are now more Linux machines than Macintosh machines out there.
And to anyone who thinks Firefox is dethroning Internet Explorer, check again: last time I checked, Internet Explorer still has AT LEAST more than 60% market share, even according to some of the most Firefox-dominant survey samples out there, like the audience who visits W3Schools. And for all the talk about ActiveX and its security flaws, that doesn't seem to have put much of a dent in its use--there are STILL quite a lot of applications out there on the web that depend heavily on ActiveX, particularly at places like banks and corporate intranets. It's all very well to say Firefox is right not to support ActiveX because of its insecurities, but for anyone who is stuck with a bank or a corporate intranet that requires ActiveX, there is basically no real alternative to Internet Explorer.
I doubt ANYONE in their right mind could seriously say the Apple, Sun, or Netscape are going to dethrone Microsoft anytime soon. Do *NOT* discount Microsoft. They might be down on this one round, but they are by *NO* means out. Last time I checked, they are STILL the dominant desktop OS, with over 90% market share, and the prospects for a successful Vista launch seem to keep getting better all the time. From the looks of it, Win Vista, whether we like it or not, is very likely to wow many people, and help Microsoft reclaim whatever ground they have lost to Apple, Google, Linux, etc.
I also warn you: Microsoft is clearing planning to move all of their MSN properties into Windows Live. The next version of Hotmail will be called Windows Live Mail, in keeping with this. Their plan is to integrate Windows Live (formerly MSN) heavily with the Windows operating system, and to market it and position it as *THE* web portal, Web 2.0 widget center (upon which other web applications will be built), and THE gateway to the Internet. By integrating Windows Live into Windows and making it platform-dependent, Microsoft still has a trump card here that Google can only DREAM of having.
Do NOT discount Microsoft--they are STILL a force to be reckoned with, they are STILL in a VERY strong position, and they are STILL very dangerous... Do NOT be lulled into a sense of complacency.
So please, next time Google (or $BIG_COMPANY) gives the open source world a donation and a piece of code it's been needing for a while now, take it as a gift, and try not to be so critical about it. Thanks.
I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing (LET ALONE getting modded up to +5 Insightful, for that matter) if that $BIG_COMPANY was Microsoft instead of Google. Don't get me wrong--I hate Microsoft with a passion, and I am NOT trying to support them here. I'm merely trying to point out the obvious hypocrisy of people here on Slashdot, and how it seems like no matter what Google does, Google can do no wrong as far as Slashdotties are concerned, whereas if it were MICROSOFT that did something like this, you can bet people here would be viewing such a move with great suspicion and cynicism, to say the least.
In the end, the ONLY question that matters is: is Google doing a good job of meeting users' needs with their technology? Google Talk is a GREAT product, but one simply CANNOT debate the fact that it remains to be seen if Google Talk can truly topple any of the Big 3 IM systems (AIM, MSN Messenger, or Yahoo), which are already well established and well entrenched.
Sure, it's all very well to say "oh, but Google Talk is wonderful, because it's based on OPEN SOURCE and OPEN STANDARDS, JUST LIKE EMAIL IS!!!" Try telling that to your non-geek friends. Personally, I am finding it VERY difficult to try to convince all my friends to communicate with me using Google Talk as opposed to anything else, using arguments like "Oh, but Google Talk is based on the open XMPP protocol, unlike what you're using!" Trust me, arguments like that generally do not win the hearts and minds of the average person. Generally, the average user only cares about practical things like: Is it easy to use? Can I talk to MY friends and people I know with it? Does it support features I care about, like Voice, or using Webcams?
If it had been some other government agency, or some private company that "cleaned house" this way, like the energy or the defense department, or like Adobe or Microsoft, would this be news on Slashdot? What makes NASA so special?
This sounds more like open sourcing of abandonware at its end of life. After all, that's what they did with Netscape.
Actually, the open sourcing of Netscape ocurred well before AOL bought them, and before they spun off the Mozilla Foundation into its own independent entity. I remember at the time of AOL's purchase of Netscape, there were some people in the community wondering what AOL's purchase of Netscape would mean for Mozilla.
On the other hand, if you are talking about the Mozilla Foundation, that's a different matter. I'd say Red Hat's spinoff of the Fedora Project today is VERY similar to AOL/Netscape's spinoff of the Mozilla Foundation into its own entity.
I think we all pretty much know that most new ventures fail. By now, this is common knowledge, and there is NOTHING new or insightful about those kinds of remarks.
A better question that digs deeper: Is the failure rate for open source ventures higher or lower than the expected rates of failure in the software industry?
Personally, I'd be willing to bet that the failure rate for open source ventures IS higher than the expected industry average, because:
1) The idea of a business model based on open source is still relatively new (in terms of the history of the computer industry), and therefore more prone to high failure rate than a more mature sort of business model, like proprietary software.
2) Even though we may have seen some SMALL successes with new open source ventures here and there of late (e.g., Red Hat), it remains to be seen whether or not such ventures will be highly profitable in the long term. Red Hat is one of the few success stories you can point to, and even then, they are delivering nowhere NEAR the kind of returns Microsoft does. VCs generally tend to expect BIG returns, given that they're taking BIG risks.
Given these points, the fact of the matter is, there IS good reason to be wary of open source ventures, because they ARE risky, and so far, it is clear that they probably won't be as profitable as Microsoft, or even Apple. If I were a VC, my first question would be: which is a better bet for me in terms of making ME rich in the long term: a Red Hat, or a Microsoft?
Holy Toledo!!! I was seriously thinking about jumping ship to Longhorn or MacOSX before I read about this. This development looks like it could seriously narrow the technological gap between the proprietary MacOSX/Longhorn world and the open source community. Well done GTK+ people!!!!
But now here's a realistic goal question: Can the open source community really deliver, and do an official, working release of this before Longhorn comes out?!? Now THAT would be AWESOME, cause it might even put the F/OSS community AHEAD of the curve and at the forefront of innovation!!!
I guess it just had to be said: Now wouldn't Microsoft just hate it if this was released before Longhorn?!?
Then again: I urge caution--supposing Microsoft has already patented such things in Longhorn? The F/OSS community could be in serious trouble...
This is EXACTLY why I have been saying for a long time now that we NEED to add authentication to SMTP, as this guy is trying to do.
This case merely proves what I've been saying for YEARS now: sooner or later, anonymity cannot be used as an excuse for lawlessness. At some point, you MUST draw the line between anonymity and the need to hold people accountable for their actions and abuses of the email system.
Good GRIEF!!! According to the article, "But in 1999 Netscape was sold for $10 billion to America Online." Nowadays, I personally find it hard to believe Netscape was ever worth that much.
Linus merely said "not at this time," and gave his rationale. To me, this hardly qualifies as "pooh-poohing." Therefore, I'd say the article headline is misleading, and designed merely to stir up emotions rather than foster rational dialog.
Why not check this out? I think this seems like a good solution, myself. Sure, people will say:
1) It will (for all practical purposes) eliminate the possibility of geeks who want to run their own mail servers on a DSL line. So what? There's no good reason for them to be doing that, except for fun or for malicious purposes.
2) It will be a blow to anonymity. So what? There has GOT to be a line drawn between anonymity and the need to hold people accountable for abuse of mail servers. Period.
Until people start to understand that there are tradeoffs in these things, things will be going nowhere.
I suggest you people hold your tongues, and think before you blindly bash Microsoft all the time. Yes, there *ARE* OTHER good reasons to hate Microsoft, but that's beside the point, and I'd rather not get into that right now.
For the purposes of this discussion, suffice it to say that I think *BOTH* the Microsoft and open source communities have their fair share of exploits to deal with. For example, the Mozilla people have had to patch things like this before, too. In fact, need I also point out that a very similar potential exploit was also found recently in GdkPixBuf. So it ISN'T just Microsoft.
Before now, many of you were saying "we don't have as many exploits as Microsoft." Then finally, when similar exploits are found in open source, you people start rationalizing, and saying "Oh, okay, but our side still fixes things faster." That's what in logic we call "rationalization," and "shifting your reasons." I also bet that some of these same people also think our President is doing this on the reasons for invading Iraq (though please note I still support the President, though that's also beside the point.)
Saying "but open source allows people to see them more quickly, too" is also no argument. Certainly, one could say open source allows for greater transparency in the process, but on the other hand, I could also legitimately argue that allowing everyone to look for possible exploits in my code is like posting the blueprints for all my locks right out in the open, so every burglar can then look for ways to try to pick them or break them.
My point is basically this: I wish people would stop going to extremes, bashing Microsoft when any kind of security flaw hits, then trying to rationalize and talk down every similar flaw that is found in their favorite open source project.
What do you mean by "nasty license issues?" I don't see how coding to a given API can result in this... If the product does not meet the given guidelines, the standards body could sue for breach of contract. Sounds simple to me.
I'm not sure I look at it as a failure on ANYONE's part. In general terms, the problem is simply this: in the past, Intellectual Property of any form (be it books, music, etc.) at least still had SOME natural element of "scarcity" about it, since its distribution was still limited by natural factors, such as printing expenses, logistics and transport expenses, etc. These factors made it nearly impossible for information consumers to re-distribute intellectual works.
Nowadays, however, the Internet has finally broken down even this barrier completely, to the point where we can now distribute intellectual property to the entire world with only a few clicks of a mouse, at virtually ZERO cost. At this point, the ONLY way we can now make intellectual property "scarce" or have any real economic value, is by trying to limit or deprive people of "natural rights" that they otherwise would have.
There are STILL two classes of people in intellectual pursuits: those who create information, and those who consume it. The sooner people realize this, the better. It is high time that we start accepting the idea that we MUST limit the "rights" of consumers if intellectual property is to retain any value at all. Information is may be easy to distribute, but anything that is truly valuable to people is NOT by any means easy to create or find. If we are to make it worth people's while to create music, art, databases, or any other kind of intellectual pursuit, we MUST come up with a way to limit the ability of information consumers to re-distribute such things on their own without payment to the person to created the information.
ISPs could block port 25 from their dynamic customers or layer-switch it to their own SMTP servers. ISPs or IHPs which ignore abuses of outside networks (DoS, spam, etc.) could face stiffer penalties.
Not good enough. It is all very well to say things like "ISPs or IHPs . . . could face stiffer penalties." But let's face it: in PRACTICE, that will at best make only miniscule reductions to spam. The problem of spam is big enough and pervasive enough that it clearly requires PREEMPTIVE action, where we can stop spam messages BEFORE they get through, not AFTER they get through. Using x.509 certs is one sure way to do this, even if it isn't perfect.
I still don't care about anything other than "decent-sized ISPs." At this point, THEY are the ones that really matter, not mere enthusiasts who want to act bigger than they are.
At first glance, I would say because it requires expensive x509 certs signed by a trusted CA. Many people use self-signed certificates because a $29 cert IS too expensive.
If I understand AMTP correctly, it requires that the SERVER have a cert, not that every single USER of that server have one. The $29 price of an x.509 cert is surely NOTHING for any decent-sized ISP. As to users to want to run their own mail servers: forget it. I personally couldn't care less about them. The buck MUST stop somewhere, and as Bill Weinman says in his AMTP draft, a balance MUST ultimately be struck between the need for "anonymity" and the need to be able to hold someone accountable for abuse (of the email privilege).
I just wish people with that much determination would concentrate on fixing the bugs, instead of exploiting them... so much wasted talent.
Why should they?!? If I ask a question, why should I also have to provide an answer? That is a stupid attitude to have. If everyone who asked questions had the answers, there'd be no questions to ask.
Likewise, why look a gift horse in the mouth when he points out a vulnerability like that? Exploiting is a different art from coding to many people. Maybe it just so happens that some people are better at seeing things that others don't catch?
And don't blame the tools, either. I hear too often people saying things like "if only it were in Java instead of C++, this would not be a problem." A poor workman always blames his tools. A poor musician can ALWAYS say "if only I had a better instrument, I could be a better musician." One simple word for that: Balderdash.
I do not think for a minute that replicating existing Firefox functionality was Google's main reason for not creating a Firefox version of this toolbar. The simple fact is, Google knows very well that IE, even with its recent troubles, STILL accounts for over 90 percent of all web browsing, and is therefore their primary target audience.
Supposing it had been the other way around... Let's suppose that Firefox had been the one with 90 percent market share that was declining, while IE was rising... Do you seriously think Google would still be taking this course of action?!? Would you then still be saying that Google just wanted to bring IE on par with Firefox? I for one seriously doubt they would do that. And THAT is the point: Google is a business, just like any other. They are not here to evangelize ANY browser; they are here to make good BUSINESS decisions, and if supporting 90 percent of all people who just happen to be using IE is the way to do it, they will. I'd hate to break it to you, but the evidence is crystal clear: If Firefox were the one with 90 percent market share, things would be quite different, and Google probably would not be bothering with IE at that point.
Too much like Windows!?!? Oh, Heaven Forbid!!!!!!
on
Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE.
Since when does "looking too much like Product X" automatically make something bad? Are you really that much of a zealot that you concern yourself more with how much it "looks like Windows/IE" than with how USEFUL GNOME IS AS A PRODUCT IN ITS OWN RIGHT?
Good grief, man!!! I'd hate to break it to you, but I hate Microsoft just as much as anyone here, if not MORE so... They *ARE* an evil company, no two ways about it. HOWEVER, having said that: it IS possible for even the most evil of people/corporations to have a good idea once in a while. (Need I point out that Hitler, for all his evil, was the one who started work on things like the Autobahn and the Volkswagen.)
If I were to take your argument to an extreme, I would have to say: Ogg Vorbis is no good--after all, the concepts behind it sound too much like MP3 or AAC.
Heh. No wonder Slashdot has so little credibility with some people.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one hope we NEVER get to see those al-Qaeda slime make an "offensive move rather than mere proselytizing." I cannot seriously believe you're suggesting that we should wait for a serious attack before we try to do anything to stop it. I for one am thankful that this guy was stopped before it escalated much further.
I think this Web 2.0 application right here, which was recently bought by Google, will probably be the best of what the competition has for a solution to your problem. Once again, we see that Microsoft no longer has a monopoly on such ideas. This is why I hope Google continues to improve Writely, and why I hope they'll eventually buy this web app, too. Mark my words, Google is gearing up for a direct assault on Microsoft's "cash cow!" And if Google works on ODF support in Writely, I am willing to wager it will be far more open than Microsoft Office, too. These kinds of developments are PRECISELY why Microsoft wanted to kill Netscape, why they now want to f___ing kill Google, and why they have been so desperately trying to make their new Windows Live portal *THE* platform of the web. In order to maintain their dominance with Windows, they know that they must find some way to make the Internet dependent on their proprietary technologies and platforms, so that they can continue to dominate and lock people in. Time will tell if Google will be able to beat them or not... But mark my words, Microsoft is DOWN, but *NOT* out. They are still a force to be reckoned with, and last time I checked, they still control more than 90% of the desktop OS market, and more than 70% of the web browser market. DO NOT DISCOUNT MICROSOFT.
Umm... shouldn't they *always* be doing this? Things like, oh, gathering requirements, modeling business processes, developing RFP's, assessing vendor and/or open source softwares capabilities?
Yes, of course they should, and that's EXACTLY the point being made here: If a small, fledgling enterprise like MySQL or JBoss gets bought by a company like Oracle or IBM, this is bound to create some uncertainty about the future direction of the said projects (at least, until the new owner makes clear what he intends to do with his newly purchased assets).
I don't know about you, but if I were in charge of purchasing/IT decisions at a large company with mission critical needs, I would DEFINITELY be a little bit concerned about the open source enterprise that had just been bought. I would be a bit concerned whether this happened to a proprietary OR an open source solution. It's all very well to say "oh, the community is bound to fill in the gaps," but WHEN, and AT WHAT COST?? Writing a new project from scratch could take months, maybe YEARS... Alright, so supposing they FORK from the original project... It might not take as long for it to mature that way, but nonetheless, it would still (in the short term) create even MORE uncertainty about the future project direction. A big business with mission critical needs can NOT afford to allow this kind of uncertainty to run amok. They want a STABLE, PREDICTABLE direction, and they want it NOW, not FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. It is perfectly understandable that someone would say, "Microsoft is a big $60 billion company, and they're far more likely to provide a stable long-term roadmap than this LMTM project by some guy who calls himself ZuperDee, and posts on some site called Slashdot all the time."
I can tell you many people couldn't believe that thing could actually run without crashing after 5 minutes of us.
I couldn't believe it either, because for me, NS 4.x actually did crash after 5 minutes of use, most of the time.
1) If it is going to take them YEARS to do this audit, surely it will take MS just as long to audit it to find the infringing bits. But even supposing MS found infringing bits tomorrow, what good would it do MS to sue anyone? I doubt MS would do that right now, because ReactOS is obviously not anywhere NEAR the point yet where it is widely used, let alone useful for daily tasks like surfing the web or writing a document. Surely MS would have little (if anything) to gain from a business perspective by suing people just yet. If ReactOS suddenly became useful like Windows though, I'm sure that may change.
2) Since a lot of the development effort on ReactOS is shared with WINE and vice-versa, I wonder if this could affect WINE, too. MS already has acknowledged WINE's existence by checking specifically for WINE registry settings in things like their Genuine Advantage program, but they obviously haven't sued anyone over that yet, either.
Seriously, I think anyone who discounts Microsoft or doesn't fear them at this point, or who says "their star seems to be fading" needs to look around again. For some time now, there have been some saying that Microsoft is becoming increasingly irrelevant, now that we have companies like Google.
.NET slowly but surely keeps gaining more and more momentum. And Apple, though they may currently have the dominant MP3 player, are still slowly getting nipped at their heels by competitors, and it is beginning to look like their dominance may begin to fade at any moment... And the Macintosh continues to face shrinking market share, to the point where there are now more Linux machines than Macintosh machines out there.
But to anyone thinks this way, I warn you: some people once thought Netscape and the World Wide Web might make Microsoft irrelevant. Others once thought Java might make Microsoft irrelevant. Some once thought Apple might dethrone Microsoft. Some once thought the Playstation would kill Microsoft. I am willing to concede that the verdict may not be in on the last two points yet, but the XBox 360 is sure making headway in that market, and the iPod, though still the most popular MP3 player, is clearly by NO means secure in its position at this point, as competing music stores AND players are continually nipping at Apple's heels.
But my point is simply this: In EVERY case but the last two, Microsoft successfully thwarted or killed those technologies, sometimes only after quite a while of making blunders. Though it may have taken a couple years, Internet Explorer ultimately killed Netscape. Java, though still widely used, appears to be stagnating, not growing, as
And to anyone who thinks Firefox is dethroning Internet Explorer, check again: last time I checked, Internet Explorer still has AT LEAST more than 60% market share, even according to some of the most Firefox-dominant survey samples out there, like the audience who visits W3Schools. And for all the talk about ActiveX and its security flaws, that doesn't seem to have put much of a dent in its use--there are STILL quite a lot of applications out there on the web that depend heavily on ActiveX, particularly at places like banks and corporate intranets. It's all very well to say Firefox is right not to support ActiveX because of its insecurities, but for anyone who is stuck with a bank or a corporate intranet that requires ActiveX, there is basically no real alternative to Internet Explorer.
I doubt ANYONE in their right mind could seriously say the Apple, Sun, or Netscape are going to dethrone Microsoft anytime soon. Do *NOT* discount Microsoft. They might be down on this one round, but they are by *NO* means out. Last time I checked, they are STILL the dominant desktop OS, with over 90% market share, and the prospects for a successful Vista launch seem to keep getting better all the time. From the looks of it, Win Vista, whether we like it or not, is very likely to wow many people, and help Microsoft reclaim whatever ground they have lost to Apple, Google, Linux, etc.
I also warn you: Microsoft is clearing planning to move all of their MSN properties into Windows Live. The next version of Hotmail will be called Windows Live Mail, in keeping with this. Their plan is to integrate Windows Live (formerly MSN) heavily with the Windows operating system, and to market it and position it as *THE* web portal, Web 2.0 widget center (upon which other web applications will be built), and THE gateway to the Internet. By integrating Windows Live into Windows and making it platform-dependent, Microsoft still has a trump card here that Google can only DREAM of having.
Do NOT discount Microsoft--they are STILL a force to be reckoned with, they are STILL in a VERY strong position, and they are STILL very dangerous... Do NOT be lulled into a sense of complacency.
So please, next time Google (or $BIG_COMPANY) gives the open source world a donation and a piece of code it's been needing for a while now, take it as a gift, and try not to be so critical about it. Thanks.
I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing (LET ALONE getting modded up to +5 Insightful, for that matter) if that $BIG_COMPANY was Microsoft instead of Google. Don't get me wrong--I hate Microsoft with a passion, and I am NOT trying to support them here. I'm merely trying to point out the obvious hypocrisy of people here on Slashdot, and how it seems like no matter what Google does, Google can do no wrong as far as Slashdotties are concerned, whereas if it were MICROSOFT that did something like this, you can bet people here would be viewing such a move with great suspicion and cynicism, to say the least.
In the end, the ONLY question that matters is: is Google doing a good job of meeting users' needs with their technology? Google Talk is a GREAT product, but one simply CANNOT debate the fact that it remains to be seen if Google Talk can truly topple any of the Big 3 IM systems (AIM, MSN Messenger, or Yahoo), which are already well established and well entrenched.
Sure, it's all very well to say "oh, but Google Talk is wonderful, because it's based on OPEN SOURCE and OPEN STANDARDS, JUST LIKE EMAIL IS!!!" Try telling that to your non-geek friends. Personally, I am finding it VERY difficult to try to convince all my friends to communicate with me using Google Talk as opposed to anything else, using arguments like "Oh, but Google Talk is based on the open XMPP protocol, unlike what you're using!" Trust me, arguments like that generally do not win the hearts and minds of the average person. Generally, the average user only cares about practical things like: Is it easy to use? Can I talk to MY friends and people I know with it? Does it support features I care about, like Voice, or using Webcams?
If it had been some other government agency, or some private company that "cleaned house" this way, like the energy or the defense department, or like Adobe or Microsoft, would this be news on Slashdot? What makes NASA so special?
This sounds more like open sourcing of abandonware at its end of life. After all, that's what they did with Netscape.
Actually, the open sourcing of Netscape ocurred well before AOL bought them, and before they spun off the Mozilla Foundation into its own independent entity. I remember at the time of AOL's purchase of Netscape, there were some people in the community wondering what AOL's purchase of Netscape would mean for Mozilla.
On the other hand, if you are talking about the Mozilla Foundation, that's a different matter. I'd say Red Hat's spinoff of the Fedora Project today is VERY similar to AOL/Netscape's spinoff of the Mozilla Foundation into its own entity.
I think we all pretty much know that most new ventures fail. By now, this is common knowledge, and there is NOTHING new or insightful about those kinds of remarks.
A better question that digs deeper: Is the failure rate for open source ventures higher or lower than the expected rates of failure in the software industry?
Personally, I'd be willing to bet that the failure rate for open source ventures IS higher than the expected industry average, because:
1) The idea of a business model based on open source is still relatively new (in terms of the history of the computer industry), and therefore more prone to high failure rate than a more mature sort of business model, like proprietary software.
2) Even though we may have seen some SMALL successes with new open source ventures here and there of late (e.g., Red Hat), it remains to be seen whether or not such ventures will be highly profitable in the long term. Red Hat is one of the few success stories you can point to, and even then, they are delivering nowhere NEAR the kind of returns Microsoft does. VCs generally tend to expect BIG returns, given that they're taking BIG risks.
Given these points, the fact of the matter is, there IS good reason to be wary of open source ventures, because they ARE risky, and so far, it is clear that they probably won't be as profitable as Microsoft, or even Apple. If I were a VC, my first question would be: which is a better bet for me in terms of making ME rich in the long term: a Red Hat, or a Microsoft?
Holy Toledo!!! I was seriously thinking about jumping ship to Longhorn or MacOSX before I read about this. This development looks like it could seriously narrow the technological gap between the proprietary MacOSX/Longhorn world and the open source community. Well done GTK+ people!!!!
But now here's a realistic goal question: Can the open source community really deliver, and do an official, working release of this before Longhorn comes out?!? Now THAT would be AWESOME, cause it might even put the F/OSS community AHEAD of the curve and at the forefront of innovation!!!
I guess it just had to be said:
Now wouldn't Microsoft just hate it if this was released before Longhorn?!?
Then again: I urge caution--supposing Microsoft has already patented such things in Longhorn? The F/OSS community could be in serious trouble...
This is EXACTLY why I have been saying for a long time now that we NEED to add authentication to SMTP, as this guy is trying to do.
This case merely proves what I've been saying for YEARS now: sooner or later, anonymity cannot be used as an excuse for lawlessness. At some point, you MUST draw the line between anonymity and the need to hold people accountable for their actions and abuses of the email system.
Good GRIEF!!! According to the article, "But in 1999 Netscape was sold for $10 billion to America Online." Nowadays, I personally find it hard to believe Netscape was ever worth that much.
Linus merely said "not at this time," and gave his rationale. To me, this hardly qualifies as "pooh-poohing." Therefore, I'd say the article headline is misleading, and designed merely to stir up emotions rather than foster rational dialog.
Not quite true--it is still allowed for the purpose of ensuring compatibility, IIRC.
Why not check this out? I think this seems like a good solution, myself. Sure, people will say:
1) It will (for all practical purposes) eliminate the possibility of geeks who want to run their own mail servers on a DSL line. So what? There's no good reason for them to be doing that, except for fun or for malicious purposes.
2) It will be a blow to anonymity. So what? There has GOT to be a line drawn between anonymity and the need to hold people accountable for abuse of mail servers. Period.
Until people start to understand that there are tradeoffs in these things, things will be going nowhere.
I suggest you people hold your tongues, and think before you blindly bash Microsoft all the time. Yes, there *ARE* OTHER good reasons to hate Microsoft, but that's beside the point, and I'd rather not get into that right now.
For the purposes of this discussion, suffice it to say that I think *BOTH* the Microsoft and open source communities have their fair share of exploits to deal with. For example, the Mozilla people have had to patch things like this before, too. In fact, need I also point out that a very similar potential exploit was also found recently in GdkPixBuf. So it ISN'T just Microsoft.
Before now, many of you were saying "we don't have as many exploits as Microsoft." Then finally, when similar exploits are found in open source, you people start rationalizing, and saying "Oh, okay, but our side still fixes things faster." That's what in logic we call "rationalization," and "shifting your reasons." I also bet that some of these same people also think our President is doing this on the reasons for invading Iraq (though please note I still support the President, though that's also beside the point.)
Saying "but open source allows people to see them more quickly, too" is also no argument. Certainly, one could say open source allows for greater transparency in the process, but on the other hand, I could also legitimately argue that allowing everyone to look for possible exploits in my code is like posting the blueprints for all my locks right out in the open, so every burglar can then look for ways to try to pick them or break them.
My point is basically this: I wish people would stop going to extremes, bashing Microsoft when any kind of security flaw hits, then trying to rationalize and talk down every similar flaw that is found in their favorite open source project.
What do you mean by "nasty license issues?" I don't see how coding to a given API can result in this... If the product does not meet the given guidelines, the standards body could sue for breach of contract. Sounds simple to me.
I'm not sure I look at it as a failure on ANYONE's part. In general terms, the problem is simply this: in the past, Intellectual Property of any form (be it books, music, etc.) at least still had SOME natural element of "scarcity" about it, since its distribution was still limited by natural factors, such as printing expenses, logistics and transport expenses, etc. These factors made it nearly impossible for information consumers to re-distribute intellectual works.
Nowadays, however, the Internet has finally broken down even this barrier completely, to the point where we can now distribute intellectual property to the entire world with only a few clicks of a mouse, at virtually ZERO cost. At this point, the ONLY way we can now make intellectual property "scarce" or have any real economic value, is by trying to limit or deprive people of "natural rights" that they otherwise would have.
There are STILL two classes of people in intellectual pursuits: those who create information, and those who consume it. The sooner people realize this, the better. It is high time that we start accepting the idea that we MUST limit the "rights" of consumers if intellectual property is to retain any value at all. Information is may be easy to distribute, but anything that is truly valuable to people is NOT by any means easy to create or find. If we are to make it worth people's while to create music, art, databases, or any other kind of intellectual pursuit, we MUST come up with a way to limit the ability of information consumers to re-distribute such things on their own without payment to the person to created the information.
ISPs could block port 25 from their dynamic customers or layer-switch it to their own SMTP servers. ISPs or IHPs which ignore abuses of outside networks (DoS, spam, etc.) could face stiffer penalties.
Not good enough. It is all very well to say things like "ISPs or IHPs . . . could face stiffer penalties." But let's face it: in PRACTICE, that will at best make only miniscule reductions to spam. The problem of spam is big enough and pervasive enough that it clearly requires PREEMPTIVE action, where we can stop spam messages BEFORE they get through, not AFTER they get through. Using x.509 certs is one sure way to do this, even if it isn't perfect.
I still don't care about anything other than "decent-sized ISPs." At this point, THEY are the ones that really matter, not mere enthusiasts who want to act bigger than they are.
At first glance, I would say because it requires expensive x509 certs signed by a trusted CA. Many people use self-signed certificates because a $29 cert IS too expensive.
If I understand AMTP correctly, it requires that the SERVER have a cert, not that every single USER of that server have one. The $29 price of an x.509 cert is surely NOTHING for any decent-sized ISP. As to users to want to run their own mail servers: forget it. I personally couldn't care less about them. The buck MUST stop somewhere, and as Bill Weinman says in his AMTP draft, a balance MUST ultimately be struck between the need for "anonymity" and the need to be able to hold someone accountable for abuse (of the email privilege).
Why not use AMTP instead of all these kludgy SMTP extensions/workarounds?
I just wish people with that much determination would concentrate on fixing the bugs, instead of exploiting them ... so much wasted talent.
Why should they?!? If I ask a question, why should I also have to provide an answer? That is a stupid attitude to have. If everyone who asked questions had the answers, there'd be no questions to ask.
Likewise, why look a gift horse in the mouth when he points out a vulnerability like that? Exploiting is a different art from coding to many people. Maybe it just so happens that some people are better at seeing things that others don't catch?
And don't blame the tools, either. I hear too often people saying things like "if only it were in Java instead of C++, this would not be a problem." A poor workman always blames his tools. A poor musician can ALWAYS say "if only I had a better instrument, I could be a better musician." One simple word for that: Balderdash.
I do not think for a minute that replicating existing Firefox functionality was Google's main reason for not creating a Firefox version of this toolbar. The simple fact is, Google knows very well that IE, even with its recent troubles, STILL accounts for over 90 percent of all web browsing, and is therefore their primary target audience.
Supposing it had been the other way around... Let's suppose that Firefox had been the one with 90 percent market share that was declining, while IE was rising... Do you seriously think Google would still be taking this course of action?!? Would you then still be saying that Google just wanted to bring IE on par with Firefox? I for one seriously doubt they would do that. And THAT is the point: Google is a business, just like any other. They are not here to evangelize ANY browser; they are here to make good BUSINESS decisions, and if supporting 90 percent of all people who just happen to be using IE is the way to do it, they will. I'd hate to break it to you, but the evidence is crystal clear: If Firefox were the one with 90 percent market share, things would be quite different, and Google probably would not be bothering with IE at that point.
My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE.
Since when does "looking too much like Product X" automatically make something bad? Are you really that much of a zealot that you concern yourself more with how much it "looks like Windows/IE" than with how USEFUL GNOME IS AS A PRODUCT IN ITS OWN RIGHT?
Good grief, man!!! I'd hate to break it to you, but I hate Microsoft just as much as anyone here, if not MORE so... They *ARE* an evil company, no two ways about it. HOWEVER, having said that: it IS possible for even the most evil of people/corporations to have a good idea once in a while. (Need I point out that Hitler, for all his evil, was the one who started work on things like the Autobahn and the Volkswagen.)
If I were to take your argument to an extreme, I would have to say: Ogg Vorbis is no good--after all, the concepts behind it sound too much like MP3 or AAC.
Heh. No wonder Slashdot has so little credibility with some people.