Moderators PLEASE read all the posts! This should be moded down as REDUNDANT as the same point has been made MULTIPLE TIMES (and I'm sick of replying to it!)
They should also ban talking to passengers, because the spirit of the law was to eliminate the danger of carrying on a discussion while trying to drive.
I think this is hogwash. I've actually hit a parking garage wall (going 5mph) because I was distracted by a passenger. I've never done anything of the sort on the phone. However, I HAVE dropped my phone when I really needed to concentrate. Prioritizing driving is easier on the phone because A) I keep my conversation short and B) I tell the person I'm driving so they expect pauses. When someone is next to me, I have a tendancy to turn my head and look at them, and I can't hang up if traffic get's messy.
Instead of arguing the merits of each license (which was not my point), let me correct you. It is not opinion of fact, because whethor or not the GPL hurts business is not trivially proven. You make great arguments, and I generally agree with them. However, it is intellectually dishonest and shows a clear lack of objectivity to claim that this issue is cut-and-dry fact, and that anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is a liar. I'm not arguing against the GPL, BSD, or OSS. Although your arguments are strong, your credibility is ruined once you reject sound logic and reasoning. Again, it is not logical to assume fact just because you have strong arguments for your stance.
News sites shouldn't even post such outright lies.
You're correct, except that you totally missed what the lie was. First, even if MS says that open-source hurts businesses, that's their informed opinion - it's not something that's easily provable as objective fact, so therefore it can't be a lie. The real lie (partly due to MS's confusing PR) is that MS is anti open source. In reality, they are anti GPL, or any other "viral" license. The GPL DOES prevent a company from protecting their intellectual property _only if they choose to use GPL code_. However, a BSDish license is truely free, hence why MS has used code from BSD licensed software.
I'm not agree within MS's anti-GPL stance, however, let's not sound like zealots by stating things like "saying GPL is bad for business is a lie". No matter how educated your opinion, it's just that, an opinion.
Microsoft was not giving out the specifications of the formats of its Office suite before: should we now suppose it's giving out the DTD/Schema AND a good explanation of how to interpret it? I'd hope the answer is yes, but giving the company's precedents...
What precedents? The fact that they've always documented everything very well including API's to get at those Office documents? Sure, they don't document the binary formats, because they give you API's to get at the data. What about the precedents with.NET? Nothing to hide here, full DTD's and Schemas for all config files and for Web Services. What about IIS 6? All config is in well documented XML files. Also, what would be the point of preaching developer ease when they don't document their XML?
Which is why MS is know for Very Good Documentation. You may think I'm sarcastic, but visit MSDN and you can find almost anything you want regarding any technology. Of course, there's exceptions to every rule (part of Win32), but with.NET, DirectX, "MS DHTML", etc. there's a ton of documentation, just like there will be on the new Office XML format.
Perhaps these announcements of XML compatible office file formats are just stalling tactics? MS has done it before. Did you actually READ the article? Of course not! I'm sick of moderators giving +5's to A) redundant posts in this thread and B) clueless posters who haven't even read the article. No, this is not a stalling tactic, Tim Bray and other 3rd parties have SEEN this and are very excited about it. This is not vapor-ware or market-ware, it's real, it'll be out, and you'll be able to parse it.
Although your point makes for a nice +5 on/., it bears little intelligence. First, XML is not like HTML - it's strict. Second, everything MS has done with XML has been open and has strictly supported standards. Finally, did you even read the article? The whole point of the article is that Tim Bray, on of the leading XML guru's, has commented VERY POSITIVELY based on beta versions that he's seen.
So, before you antt-MS troll, try reading the article and maybe even thinking.
Poor moderating on this comment. As long as the DJ doesn't pretend that it's their music, and as long as the artists on the mix CD are aware or even getting a cut of the profits, it's all good. Many DJ's don't pretend that it's their music, rather, that it's their _mix_. I'm an amateur producer of DnB, Trance, and 2Step (Strange combination, I know!), so I would also be pissed if some DJ was selling my music as their own. However, I'm learning to become a DJ (partly to promote my own music), and I can tell you that it takes a lot of skill. Turntables are an instrument in a sense, and a good DJ can make the night at a club or party.
Because technically the DLL's (namely MSHTML.DLL) make up the majority of the browser, and it's silly to not include a browser with an OS - especially when most of it needs to be there anyway. It's perfectly possible for MS to remove IExplore.exe, so technicaly a small part of IE doesn't have to be there.
I just get pissed when people talk about the demise of Netscape because of IE. What about all the shell file explores for DOS? Should we force Microsoft to not include a file browser, dial up networking or a TCP/IP stack (remember Trumpet Winsock?) so that others can compete in this sector still? Part of technology's rapid growth is ubiquity, which can put niche companies out of business. The browser used to be a niche, now it's used more often then a file browser. It makes perfect sense for them to integrate IE, both technically and practically. And, quite frankly, it's their right.
Except that IIS supports this nice feature called a throttle which would give many/.'ers a "Server Busy" error but would also A) allow current sessions to browse the site at a reasonable speed and B) not take the server down. Of course, packet monitoring is available at the OS level, but it's nice to have it controlled and gracefully handled by the web server. AFAIK Apache does not yet support this (although I have no experience with 2.x which no one really uses anyway).
Well this is just an example of how that fabrication -- and by extension Microsoft's influence -- affects a fair market negatively. Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror...all out in the cold because Microsoft created their own necessity.
This is absolutely wrong. I agree that the fabrication in court was stupid, and MS's idiotic legal team could have won on factual grounds IMHO. Of course it wouldn't cripple Windows, per se. But a lot of software (not just logitech's) use the MSHTML component from IE. What logitec is saying is that a newer version of IE contains a DLL or two that they need. This is not taking over Opera, etc. because it has nothing to do with browsing the Internet nor does it have anything to do with your default browser.
How in the world was this A) modded up and B) based on fact? This is like saying that just because someone uses Java (which supports Web Services, just like.NET) that Sun can now capture everything that you do with it. This is total hogwash barely worthy of a -1.
+5 Insightful? I'll agree that taxation is not quite equal, but your claims are rediculous. First of all, if the taxation system was so unbalanced then this has nothing to do with using GPL'd software in the government, rather it has to do with a failed tax system. Although I agree that certain tax shelters should be eliminated to create a more fair tax system, this doesn't mean that using BSD'd software in the government is going to directly transfer wealth from the middle class to corporations. Even if I did subcribe to your skewed line of thought then I'd also have to logically conclude that small business will benefit just as much as corporations. And since the relative gain for small businesses is much larger, it stands to help small businesses out better. Watch you GPL zealotry - it's discrediting your intelligence. Again, I agree to a small extent that our taxation system favors the rich (including Bush's tax breaks to "help encourage corporations to hire more people"), but not to the extreme degree that you do, nor with any correllations to the GPL.
It is my right to make an all Flash website, and it is not your right to make me build a text-only version.
heck most of these places are required to have TTY phones and operators to handle calls from the deaf
The Web is one means of purchasing their products, not their only means. Southwest caters to the blind and deaf through different mediums. The blind need not use TTY, or their website, but their 1-800 number suits them well..
Maybe I'll take my last post back... here's some food for thought. What happens if there was a discount only available via a special radio offer, and a deaf person couldn't hear it to get the promotion code? Is this really discriminatory discounting, or is it just part of the unfortunate reality of being deaf?
Then the lawsuit should have been regarding discriminatory discounts, not forcing a visual medium to accomodate the blind.
For the record, I believe that all businesses should make an effort to make w3c complient websites so that the tools for the disabled can parse them properly. However, I don't believe in regulation for w3c compliance, or any additional efforts for making websites more accessible.
Because you want to support the continued development of the software, because you know your company will only continue to benefit by the additional time and investment
But this is completely utopian! My company notices that your company, plus a bunch of nerds are already putting enough time and investment into it. For example - my company as never and will never invest in any open source project. Yet, Apache, Perl, and Linux are going to continue to grow successfully. Why should I drop a dime for it when I don't have to? Because it's nice?
Actually, the XP2800+ won't be available 'till Christmas AFAIK. Nevertheless, that's not my point. There's no reason for AMD to strive to build a 2.8Ghz Athlon when no one needs it. That doesn't mean they don't try and build faster chips (see: Opteron), it just means that they don't release as many faster consumer grade chips because the market doesn't demand it.
Slashdot Mirror
Could we please stop mod'n brainless zealots up?
Moderators PLEASE read all the posts! This should be moded down as REDUNDANT as the same point has been made MULTIPLE TIMES (and I'm sick of replying to it!)
They should also ban talking to passengers, because the spirit of the law was to eliminate the danger of carrying on a discussion while trying to drive.
I think this is hogwash. I've actually hit a parking garage wall (going 5mph) because I was distracted by a passenger. I've never done anything of the sort on the phone. However, I HAVE dropped my phone when I really needed to concentrate. Prioritizing driving is easier on the phone because A) I keep my conversation short and B) I tell the person I'm driving so they expect pauses. When someone is next to me, I have a tendancy to turn my head and look at them, and I can't hang up if traffic get's messy.
Instead of arguing the merits of each license (which was not my point), let me correct you. It is not opinion of fact, because whethor or not the GPL hurts business is not trivially proven. You make great arguments, and I generally agree with them. However, it is intellectually dishonest and shows a clear lack of objectivity to claim that this issue is cut-and-dry fact, and that anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is a liar. I'm not arguing against the GPL, BSD, or OSS. Although your arguments are strong, your credibility is ruined once you reject sound logic and reasoning. Again, it is not logical to assume fact just because you have strong arguments for your stance.
Get an iPod.
News sites shouldn't even post such outright lies.
You're correct, except that you totally missed what the lie was. First, even if MS says that open-source hurts businesses, that's their informed opinion - it's not something that's easily provable as objective fact, so therefore it can't be a lie. The real lie (partly due to MS's confusing PR) is that MS is anti open source. In reality, they are anti GPL, or any other "viral" license. The GPL DOES prevent a company from protecting their intellectual property _only if they choose to use GPL code_. However, a BSDish license is truely free, hence why MS has used code from BSD licensed software.
I'm not agree within MS's anti-GPL stance, however, let's not sound like zealots by stating things like "saying GPL is bad for business is a lie". No matter how educated your opinion, it's just that, an opinion.
If you had a good description of their files formats, you could develop your own, interoperable office suite.
.NET?
Kinda like people are doing with
Microsoft was not giving out the specifications of the formats of its Office suite before: should we now suppose it's giving out the DTD/Schema AND a good explanation of how to interpret it? I'd hope the answer is yes, but giving the company's precedents...
.NET? Nothing to hide here, full DTD's and Schemas for all config files and for Web Services. What about IIS 6? All config is in well documented XML files. Also, what would be the point of preaching developer ease when they don't document their XML?
What precedents? The fact that they've always documented everything very well including API's to get at those Office documents? Sure, they don't document the binary formats, because they give you API's to get at the data. What about the precedents with
Which is why MS is know for Very Good Documentation. You may think I'm sarcastic, but visit MSDN and you can find almost anything you want regarding any technology. Of course, there's exceptions to every rule (part of Win32), but with .NET, DirectX, "MS DHTML", etc. there's a ton of documentation, just like there will be on the new Office XML format.
Perhaps these announcements of XML compatible office file formats are just stalling tactics? MS has done it before.
Did you actually READ the article? Of course not! I'm sick of moderators giving +5's to A) redundant posts in this thread and B) clueless posters who haven't even read the article. No, this is not a stalling tactic, Tim Bray and other 3rd parties have SEEN this and are very excited about it. This is not vapor-ware or market-ware, it's real, it'll be out, and you'll be able to parse it.
Although your point makes for a nice +5 on /., it bears little intelligence. First, XML is not like HTML - it's strict. Second, everything MS has done with XML has been open and has strictly supported standards. Finally, did you even read the article? The whole point of the article is that Tim Bray, on of the leading XML guru's, has commented VERY POSITIVELY based on beta versions that he's seen.
So, before you antt-MS troll, try reading the article and maybe even thinking.
Poor moderating on this comment. As long as the DJ doesn't pretend that it's their music, and as long as the artists on the mix CD are aware or even getting a cut of the profits, it's all good. Many DJ's don't pretend that it's their music, rather, that it's their _mix_. I'm an amateur producer of DnB, Trance, and 2Step (Strange combination, I know!), so I would also be pissed if some DJ was selling my music as their own. However, I'm learning to become a DJ (partly to promote my own music), and I can tell you that it takes a lot of skill. Turntables are an instrument in a sense, and a good DJ can make the night at a club or party.
Because technically the DLL's (namely MSHTML.DLL) make up the majority of the browser, and it's silly to not include a browser with an OS - especially when most of it needs to be there anyway. It's perfectly possible for MS to remove IExplore.exe, so technicaly a small part of IE doesn't have to be there.
I just get pissed when people talk about the demise of Netscape because of IE. What about all the shell file explores for DOS? Should we force Microsoft to not include a file browser, dial up networking or a TCP/IP stack (remember Trumpet Winsock?) so that others can compete in this sector still? Part of technology's rapid growth is ubiquity, which can put niche companies out of business. The browser used to be a niche, now it's used more often then a file browser. It makes perfect sense for them to integrate IE, both technically and practically. And, quite frankly, it's their right.
Except that IIS supports this nice feature called a throttle which would give many /.'ers a "Server Busy" error but would also A) allow current sessions to browse the site at a reasonable speed and B) not take the server down. Of course, packet monitoring is available at the OS level, but it's nice to have it controlled and gracefully handled by the web server. AFAIK Apache does not yet support this (although I have no experience with 2.x which no one really uses anyway).
Well this is just an example of how that fabrication -- and by extension Microsoft's influence -- affects a fair market negatively. Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror ...all out in the cold because Microsoft created their own necessity.
This is absolutely wrong. I agree that the fabrication in court was stupid, and MS's idiotic legal team could have won on factual grounds IMHO. Of course it wouldn't cripple Windows, per se. But a lot of software (not just logitech's) use the MSHTML component from IE. What logitec is saying is that a newer version of IE contains a DLL or two that they need. This is not taking over Opera, etc. because it has nothing to do with browsing the Internet nor does it have anything to do with your default browser.
How in the world was this A) modded up and B) based on fact? This is like saying that just because someone uses Java (which supports Web Services, just like .NET) that Sun can now capture everything that you do with it. This is total hogwash barely worthy of a -1.
REQUIRES the .NET framework to run -- so much for Linux!
Aside from go-mono, check the Rotor project on BSD.
As has already been posted, don't forget that NPR comes at a cost. It's just up to those of us who use it to donate.
+5 Insightful? I'll agree that taxation is not quite equal, but your claims are rediculous. First of all, if the taxation system was so unbalanced then this has nothing to do with using GPL'd software in the government, rather it has to do with a failed tax system. Although I agree that certain tax shelters should be eliminated to create a more fair tax system, this doesn't mean that using BSD'd software in the government is going to directly transfer wealth from the middle class to corporations. Even if I did subcribe to your skewed line of thought then I'd also have to logically conclude that small business will benefit just as much as corporations. And since the relative gain for small businesses is much larger, it stands to help small businesses out better. Watch you GPL zealotry - it's discrediting your intelligence. Again, I agree to a small extent that our taxation system favors the rich (including Bush's tax breaks to "help encourage corporations to hire more people"), but not to the extreme degree that you do, nor with any correllations to the GPL.
It is my right to make an all Flash website, and it is not your right to make me build a text-only version.
heck most of these places are required to have TTY phones and operators to handle calls from the deaf
The Web is one means of purchasing their products, not their only means. Southwest caters to the blind and deaf through different mediums. The blind need not use TTY, or their website, but their 1-800 number suits them well..
Maybe I'll take my last post back... here's some food for thought. What happens if there was a discount only available via a special radio offer, and a deaf person couldn't hear it to get the promotion code? Is this really discriminatory discounting, or is it just part of the unfortunate reality of being deaf?
Then the lawsuit should have been regarding discriminatory discounts, not forcing a visual medium to accomodate the blind.
For the record, I believe that all businesses should make an effort to make w3c complient websites so that the tools for the disabled can parse them properly. However, I don't believe in regulation for w3c compliance, or any additional efforts for making websites more accessible.
Because you want to support the continued development of the software, because you know your company will only continue to benefit by the additional time and investment
But this is completely utopian! My company notices that your company, plus a bunch of nerds are already putting enough time and investment into it. For example - my company as never and will never invest in any open source project. Yet, Apache, Perl, and Linux are going to continue to grow successfully. Why should I drop a dime for it when I don't have to? Because it's nice?
Actually, the XP2800+ won't be available 'till Christmas AFAIK. Nevertheless, that's not my point. There's no reason for AMD to strive to build a 2.8Ghz Athlon when no one needs it. That doesn't mean they don't try and build faster chips (see: Opteron), it just means that they don't release as many faster consumer grade chips because the market doesn't demand it.