My favorite post so far is the web designer who feels "stabbed in the back" because the industry has "standardized" on IE and now they'll have to worry about another browser.
Well, pack me off to Bugtussle, Beulah, seems this swamp ain't as nice as it looked.
Big hint, here, guys: standardizing on defacto standards owned by a company that demonstrates allegience to no one but itself (check out the recent enterprise licensing schemes if you think MS cares about its customers one whit) is a reliable way to get screwed.
That's especially true when you consider that, in this case, "standardizing" means making a conscious decision to exclude a portion of the browsing public. Can't be the fairest thing to do when you work for paying customers who need the biggest bang for their buck.
Big cheers to AOL if they go ahead with this. I'm damned sure that most big sites will not tolerate web developers who lock out that much of their audience. I neither like nor use the AOL service, but I promise to say nice things about it if this happens.
I hope this whole experience teaches that there is some value to planning and prioritizing. Meeting goals isn't be a matter of saying "screw the bugs, send it out the door", even if some (too many?) treat it that way. It's a matter of saying "These are the things we can do now, those are the things we can do later."
It still goes out "when it's ready," but you have an idea of what "when it's ready" means.
I was so excited when Netscape opened the code.
A long, long, time ago.
And that's the problem. I'm not sure that Mozilla even matters any more, but I think that it does. If nothing else, Microsoft's ham-handedness with product activation, etc. may re-open the window of opportunity.
The 1.0 approach Eich outlines is exactly what the project has needed for the last 18 months, if not two years.
There comes a time when you stop saying "It'll be ready when it's ready" and start asking "How do we make it ready?"
Eich's memo is the answer to that question.
Good luck, guys.
You can do it if you set your mind to it.
You don't have to negotiate. You make a different choice. Small companies often have more -- not fewer -- choices than big companies because their needs are smaller (not lesser--smaller).
I've seen small companies spend ungodly sums of money on IT relative to their size because they didn't analyze well. That's often because they'd rather spend a fortune on crap software and consultants than on a couple of good IT folks. And, of course, small companies are even more prone than large companies to CEOs who, ahem, know more than the techies do.
You put the question the right way: There should be no buggy software.
Buggy software is not the same thing as software that has bugs. Buggy software is software that reaches such a level of poor quality or irrational design that you identify it more by what it screws up than what it does. You may be able to get a lot done, but only because you've memorized a catalog of work-arounds and "don't do thats."
Any ambitious software will have bugs because people are not perfect, but buggy software exists because people don't give a damn.
It's amazing how fast things are moving in free software land.
I spent a year using Microsoft Office at work, and two years using StarOffice 5.x everywhere else.
I now use the SO 6.0 beta.
Doesn't have all the changes I'd like, but it is nice software and the file exchange (now covering revision marks and hidden fields) will let you live with your Office-using friends.
Sure -- you probably want to keep a copy of Office around where you can get at it if somebody sends you a really perverted file. OTOH, it is only betaware at the moment.
Hmmm. I guess Office is the same.
Always.
I don't wish to excuse any vendor for delivering crapware. Bad vendors should go out of business.
That's the problem.
If CIOs would cover their damned butts they wouldn't get into these binds.
It's good to hold Oracle's feet to the fire. It's good to make them sweat and to make them deliver.
But...
Why aren't these CIOs demanding reasonable back-out strategies?
Twenty years ago, when I worked for EDS, clients routinely demanded that we use particular technologies so that they could kick us out if they didn't like us.
At another employer, the only patents I've ever had my name on (inventor, not owner. No money for me) came because we didn't want to be locked into AT&T as a long-distance provider. They had a special feature we wanted called Network ACD, but it was patented and no one else could offer it. We spent the time and money to invent our own system and stay free to negotiate with whomever we pleased.
I'm amazed by these people who are talking up subscription software. Nothing wrong with the concept, really -- if you've got a way out. Then it's like a lease-or-buy decision for anything else.
With a lock-in? Come on. Surely they've noticed that Microsoft is moving in that direction without any prodding from the outside. That should tell 'em everything they need to know.
Botton line:
Oracle or nothing, Office or nothing, anything or nothing will leave you screwed.
Well, the bug squasing part is definitely good.
No maybe about that .
I guess Mitch Kapor can't hurt. He certainly is a bright and experienced software businessman.
Still, I hope he's learned a thing or two in the last ten years.
When Windows 3.0 came out, Lotus 1-2-3 was the biggest spreadsheet. Period. Win 3.0 would have gone nowhere if it couldn't run (and multitask) major DOS programs like 1-2-3.
Mitch Kapor didn't pay any attention to Windows. He was more concerned with 1-2-3 for OS/2 and -- believe it or not -- something called 1-2-3/M, a 1-2-3 spreadsheet for IBM mainframes.
I wonder if Microsoft would have its present monopoly if Lotus and WordPerfect had ventured into Windows Land in the pre-3.0 days, when Gates was still trying to get ports to run on his platform.
People didn't start using Word for Windows and Excel because they were so wonderful.
Back before Office software got pre-loaded, and back before Microsoft was the 800 pound software gorilla, people started using them because the other guys didn't have Windows software. Microsoft made competitive upgrades cheap, and hand-held new-to-Microsoft users.
"Oh, John, John, I want...Wait a minute! Are you wearing those boots again?"
"My feet were cold, hon. That's all. Cold feet. They don't mean a thing to me."
"I knew it. You were kissing me, but you were thing of them. You've been running around on me. You heel. You're nothing but a leather whore"
"No, baby, honest. It's not like that at all. Sure, the boots and me were an item once, but we're just friends now. C'mon, baby. Can't a guy have friends?"
"You can have all the damned friends you want, John. I'm leaving you. Oh, and just so you'll know: I'm stopping by the shoe store on my way out."
Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Sometimes they do, but I doubt that's the case here, not that it matters.
I have no doubt that a careful re-examination of the issue should have made them realize that each has more to lose than to gain with RAND standards.
First, it's impossible to devise a non-discriminatory standard that imposes a royalty fee. The receiver of the royalties always has the advantage.
Second, such a system, by favoring the biggest players (as they are the ones likely to finagle the largest number of such standards), it would favor the status quo. Not so bad if you're Microsoft or IBM or even Sun. Less wonderful if you're HP or Apple.
>But licencing terms alone CAN be non-descriminatory outside of that context.
I agree. As you pointed out, this discussion is about the appropriateness of the W3C blessing proprietary technologies licensed on a royalty basis. In that context, it's hard to live up to the "ND".
1. If the intellectual property owner owns the idea, of course they don't pay themselves. It doesn't make any difference who it is. Why do you even ask?
I aks because you are completely correct. A platform provider does not pay itself. That means it is impossible for a platform provider to charge a royalty in a non-discriminatory way.
This is normal IP fare, and, so far as it goes, ok. Blessing such a thing as an internet or web standard is another matter. One should not create standards that, by their nature, tilt the web in a single vendor's direction.
I have two questions:
1. How can you have non-discriminatory licensing from platform vendors? If Microsoft charges itself a $25 license fee and offers the technology to everyone else for the same $25, that is not non-discriminatory. For Microsoft, it's merely account-shuffling. For everyone else, it's out-of-pocket.
2. Why support fiefdoms with RAND? Why not refuse to even consider any standard that the submitters have not already agreed to license freely for Web use (ie, even if they have patents, you have secured free use) and to indemnify the W3C and Web users against any claims by patent holders whose patent applications the submitters were aware of?
Your assumption that nothing's missing is wrong. Just another example of addle-brained IP isn't real so I can do what I damned well please thinking.
What's missing in this case is recognition duly earned and deserved with the enhanced reputation that implies. An enhanced reputation is worth more than pats on the backs and conversation over beers. It can lead to job opportunities and the like. There is far more of value in this world than that which you see and touch. Ever notice that a Mercedes costs one hell of a lot more money than the raw materials+hours of labor that go into manurfacturing it?
First GNOME steals from khtml without attribution and now this.
Oh -- and steals is the right term.
This is one of the few ways you can steal BSD'd code. The license lets you do pretty much whatever you want.
Proper attribution is not a big thing to ask, especially as meager compensation to a job well done. If the code's worth taking, it's certainly worth attributing.
The worst part is that it allows the Microsofts of this world to say that free developers really aren't that different from themselves.
Phooey.
Employment in the US has always been "at-will" unless modified by labor or other contracts.
Employers and employees have, in the past, treated it differently because it made (and still makes) sense to do so -- at least for companies that expect to be around for more than another year.
I worked at one company that was in a spiral towards bankruptcy. After several layoffs, a number of good people remained who believed in the products being developed. By the time I got laid off, no severance package of any kind was offered. My last day of pay was also my last day of health insurance.
After that layoff, key developers for their new product all left. A quick re-calculation of the company's actions made the risks suddenly unacceptable.
I'm not sure that the new product ever got developed. I do know that the company went bankrupt and its assets were bought out by someone who is marketing the old product without the debt of the old company. They may even have found someone with the know-how to bring the new product (an NT version of a product running on AS/400 and Unix) to market.
Not that it would do the original company any good.
Besides, their own arguments lead to a different conclusion than they tend to present.
They argue that this attack is the logical result of our actions and is to be expected.
By that logic, massive retaliation is the logical result of this attack and is to be expected.
A further natural consequence of the arguement is that we will be perceived as weak if we fail to deliver on the expectation.
Logic dictates that we do not want this kind of ruthless jackal perceiving us to be weak. If we believe in this kind of argument, we must act decisively and effectively or we will not even be able to negotiate a fair peace.
I have to agree with Brett's analysis. This OAL sounds pretty silly. The question I have is pretty simple: What need is served here?
I've written a number of things that I have made freely available. They are up on my website along with the permission to copy, link, etc -- with attribution. I didn't need the OAL to do that for me.
Should I ever finish the book I'm writing (light is now visible at the end of the tunnel), I will try to sell it. Obviously, I don't agree with RMS that my efforts shouldn't give me some right to the product of all that work. I certainly would not use the OAL for that. I
So -- what's the point of the license?
How could it possibly be important? I can understand the need for freedom with functional items like computer source code. There is a real value in fixing bugs, finding privacy holes, security holes, etc. But a song? A story? I just don't get it.
> Seriously. God damn, you'd think at least one person at/. would have a little common sense.
New hire, I presume?
OK, so the "facts" might be a smidge off...
on
Microsoft vs. Ximian
·
· Score: 1
This reminds me of the old Hollywood line, "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right".
If this represents the Post's overall attention to facts, then -- Wait! It probably does!
Sigh.
Nevertheless, it's very nice to see a piece that is generally positive to free software appearing in a mainstream publication -- a majore mainstream publication -- like the Post.
If they didn't quite get the facts right, they got the tone more or less right, and that'll do for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, pack me off to Bugtussle, Beulah, seems this swamp ain't as nice as it looked.
Big hint, here, guys: standardizing on defacto standards owned by a company that demonstrates allegience to no one but itself (check out the recent enterprise licensing schemes if you think MS cares about its customers one whit) is a reliable way to get screwed.
That's especially true when you consider that, in this case, "standardizing" means making a conscious decision to exclude a portion of the browsing public. Can't be the fairest thing to do when you work for paying customers who need the biggest bang for their buck.
Big cheers to AOL if they go ahead with this. I'm damned sure that most big sites will not tolerate web developers who lock out that much of their audience. I neither like nor use the AOL service, but I promise to say nice things about it if this happens.
I stand (or sit) corrected.
They'll never make 'em small enough to keep the latest Windows (Windows 2020? Windows MMXX?) from looking like a bloated pig.
I'd say that's day 1.
You'll get no argument from me.
I hope this whole experience teaches that there is some value to planning and prioritizing. Meeting goals isn't be a matter of saying "screw the bugs, send it out the door", even if some (too many?) treat it that way. It's a matter of saying "These are the things we can do now, those are the things we can do later."
It still goes out "when it's ready," but you have an idea of what "when it's ready" means.
Sure - if it's ready.
The reality is that IE is 85% of browsers today.
And that's what the push to 1.0 is all about.
Making something that all of the folks who would put Mozilla in those places can use with confidence.
I was so excited when Netscape opened the code.
A long, long, time ago.
And that's the problem. I'm not sure that Mozilla even matters any more, but I think that it does. If nothing else, Microsoft's ham-handedness with product activation, etc. may re-open the window of opportunity.
The 1.0 approach Eich outlines is exactly what the project has needed for the last 18 months, if not two years.
There comes a time when you stop saying "It'll be ready when it's ready" and start asking "How do we make it ready?"
Eich's memo is the answer to that question.
Good luck, guys.
You can do it if you set your mind to it.
You don't have to negotiate. You make a different choice. Small companies often have more -- not fewer -- choices than big companies because their needs are smaller (not lesser--smaller).
I've seen small companies spend ungodly sums of money on IT relative to their size because they didn't analyze well. That's often because they'd rather spend a fortune on crap software and consultants than on a couple of good IT folks. And, of course, small companies are even more prone than large companies to CEOs who, ahem, know more than the techies do.
You put the question the right way: There should be no buggy software.
Buggy software is not the same thing as software that has bugs. Buggy software is software that reaches such a level of poor quality or irrational design that you identify it more by what it screws up than what it does. You may be able to get a lot done, but only because you've memorized a catalog of work-arounds and "don't do thats."
Any ambitious software will have bugs because people are not perfect, but buggy software exists because people don't give a damn.
It's amazing how fast things are moving in free software land.
I spent a year using Microsoft Office at work, and two years using StarOffice 5.x everywhere else.
I now use the SO 6.0 beta.
Doesn't have all the changes I'd like, but it is nice software and the file exchange (now covering revision marks and hidden fields) will let you live with your Office-using friends.
Sure -- you probably want to keep a copy of Office around where you can get at it if somebody sends you a really perverted file. OTOH, it is only betaware at the moment.
Hmmm. I guess Office is the same.
Always.
I don't wish to excuse any vendor for delivering crapware. Bad vendors should go out of business.
That's the problem.
If CIOs would cover their damned butts they wouldn't get into these binds.
It's good to hold Oracle's feet to the fire. It's good to make them sweat and to make them deliver.
But...
Why aren't these CIOs demanding reasonable back-out strategies?
Twenty years ago, when I worked for EDS, clients routinely demanded that we use particular technologies so that they could kick us out if they didn't like us.
At another employer, the only patents I've ever had my name on (inventor, not owner. No money for me) came because we didn't want to be locked into AT&T as a long-distance provider. They had a special feature we wanted called Network ACD, but it was patented and no one else could offer it. We spent the time and money to invent our own system and stay free to negotiate with whomever we pleased.
I'm amazed by these people who are talking up subscription software. Nothing wrong with the concept, really -- if you've got a way out. Then it's like a lease-or-buy decision for anything else.
With a lock-in? Come on. Surely they've noticed that Microsoft is moving in that direction without any prodding from the outside. That should tell 'em everything they need to know.
Botton line:
Oracle or nothing, Office or nothing, anything or nothing will leave you screwed.
Well, the bug squasing part is definitely good.
No maybe about that .
I guess Mitch Kapor can't hurt. He certainly is a bright and experienced software businessman.
Still, I hope he's learned a thing or two in the last ten years.
When Windows 3.0 came out, Lotus 1-2-3 was the biggest spreadsheet. Period. Win 3.0 would have gone nowhere if it couldn't run (and multitask) major DOS programs like 1-2-3.
Mitch Kapor didn't pay any attention to Windows. He was more concerned with 1-2-3 for OS/2 and -- believe it or not -- something called 1-2-3/M, a 1-2-3 spreadsheet for IBM mainframes.
I wonder if Microsoft would have its present monopoly if Lotus and WordPerfect had ventured into Windows Land in the pre-3.0 days, when Gates was still trying to get ports to run on his platform.
People didn't start using Word for Windows and Excel because they were so wonderful.
Back before Office software got pre-loaded, and back before Microsoft was the 800 pound software gorilla, people started using them because the other guys didn't have Windows software. Microsoft made competitive upgrades cheap, and hand-held new-to-Microsoft users.
Of course, once they got 'em in their clutches...
"Baby, when I kiss you, it makes my toes tingle."
"Oh, John, John, I want...Wait a minute! Are you wearing those boots again?"
"My feet were cold, hon. That's all. Cold feet. They don't mean a thing to me."
"I knew it. You were kissing me, but you were thing of them. You've been running around on me. You heel. You're nothing but a leather whore"
"No, baby, honest. It's not like that at all. Sure, the boots and me were an item once, but we're just friends now. C'mon, baby. Can't a guy have friends?"
"You can have all the damned friends you want, John. I'm leaving you. Oh, and just so you'll know: I'm stopping by the shoe store on my way out."
"No-o-o-o-o-o!!!!"
Don't you worry about Alan.
I hear he's already working on an ac patch.
The Takeda-ac prize won't get as much press attention, but it will get all of the best candidates before the "other" Takeda prize.
Plus, it's unlikely ever to make a "brown paper bag" selection.
Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Sometimes they do, but I doubt that's the case here, not that it matters.
I have no doubt that a careful re-examination of the issue should have made them realize that each has more to lose than to gain with RAND standards.
First, it's impossible to devise a non-discriminatory standard that imposes a royalty fee. The receiver of the royalties always has the advantage.
Second, such a system, by favoring the biggest players (as they are the ones likely to finagle the largest number of such standards), it would favor the status quo. Not so bad if you're Microsoft or IBM or even Sun. Less wonderful if you're HP or Apple.
>But licencing terms alone CAN be non-descriminatory outside of that context.
I agree. As you pointed out, this discussion is about the appropriateness of the W3C blessing proprietary technologies licensed on a royalty basis. In that context, it's hard to live up to the "ND".
1. If the intellectual property owner owns the idea, of course they don't pay themselves. It doesn't make any difference who it is. Why do you even ask?
I aks because you are completely correct. A platform provider does not pay itself. That means it is impossible for a platform provider to charge a royalty in a non-discriminatory way.
This is normal IP fare, and, so far as it goes, ok. Blessing such a thing as an internet or web standard is another matter. One should not create standards that, by their nature, tilt the web in a single vendor's direction.
I have two questions:
1. How can you have non-discriminatory licensing from platform vendors? If Microsoft charges itself a $25 license fee and offers the technology to everyone else for the same $25, that is not non-discriminatory. For Microsoft, it's merely account-shuffling. For everyone else, it's out-of-pocket.
2. Why support fiefdoms with RAND? Why not refuse to even consider any standard that the submitters have not already agreed to license freely for Web use (ie, even if they have patents, you have secured free use) and to indemnify the W3C and Web users against any claims by patent holders whose patent applications the submitters were aware of?
Your assumption that nothing's missing is wrong. Just another example of addle-brained IP isn't real so I can do what I damned well please thinking.
What's missing in this case is recognition duly earned and deserved with the enhanced reputation that implies. An enhanced reputation is worth more than pats on the backs and conversation over beers. It can lead to job opportunities and the like. There is far more of value in this world than that which you see and touch. Ever notice that a Mercedes costs one hell of a lot more money than the raw materials+hours of labor that go into manurfacturing it?
First GNOME steals from khtml without attribution and now this.
Oh -- and steals is the right term.
This is one of the few ways you can steal BSD'd code. The license lets you do pretty much whatever you want.
Proper attribution is not a big thing to ask, especially as meager compensation to a job well done. If the code's worth taking, it's certainly worth attributing.
The worst part is that it allows the Microsofts of this world to say that free developers really aren't that different from themselves.
Phooey.
Employment in the US has always been "at-will" unless modified by labor or other contracts.
Employers and employees have, in the past, treated it differently because it made (and still makes) sense to do so -- at least for companies that expect to be around for more than another year.
I worked at one company that was in a spiral towards bankruptcy. After several layoffs, a number of good people remained who believed in the products being developed. By the time I got laid off, no severance package of any kind was offered. My last day of pay was also my last day of health insurance.
After that layoff, key developers for their new product all left. A quick re-calculation of the company's actions made the risks suddenly unacceptable.
I'm not sure that the new product ever got developed. I do know that the company went bankrupt and its assets were bought out by someone who is marketing the old product without the debt of the old company. They may even have found someone with the know-how to bring the new product (an NT version of a product running on AS/400 and Unix) to market.
Not that it would do the original company any good.
You don't write a book and then try to sell it
That is precisely what you do with fiction if you are not an established author. Nobody will talk to you unless you have a finished work in hand.
I suggest you go back and learn a little bit.
>You go on with classic 90s leftist claptrap.
Besides, their own arguments lead to a different conclusion than they tend to present.
They argue that this attack is the logical result of our actions and is to be expected.
By that logic, massive retaliation is the logical result of this attack and is to be expected.
A further natural consequence of the arguement is that we will be perceived as weak if we fail to deliver on the expectation.
Logic dictates that we do not want this kind of ruthless jackal perceiving us to be weak. If we believe in this kind of argument, we must act decisively and effectively or we will not even be able to negotiate a fair peace.
I have to agree with Brett's analysis. This OAL sounds pretty silly. The question I have is pretty simple: What need is served here?
I've written a number of things that I have made freely available. They are up on my website along with the permission to copy, link, etc -- with attribution. I didn't need the OAL to do that for me.
Should I ever finish the book I'm writing (light is now visible at the end of the tunnel), I will try to sell it. Obviously, I don't agree with RMS that my efforts shouldn't give me some right to the product of all that work. I certainly would not use the OAL for that. I
So -- what's the point of the license?
How could it possibly be important? I can understand the need for freedom with functional items like computer source code. There is a real value in fixing bugs, finding privacy holes, security holes, etc. But a song? A story? I just don't get it.
> Seriously. God damn, you'd think at least one person at /. would have a little common sense.
New hire, I presume?
This reminds me of the old Hollywood line, "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right".
If this represents the Post's overall attention to facts, then -- Wait! It probably does!
Sigh.
Nevertheless, it's very nice to see a piece that is generally positive to free software appearing in a mainstream publication -- a majore mainstream publication -- like the Post.
If they didn't quite get the facts right, they got the tone more or less right, and that'll do for now.