Yes, MS Office is the better product. Of course, for what MS Office costs, I could buy a whole new computer.
The prize, in the software world, doesn't go to the folks that have the best software. It goes to the folks that have the least expensive software that is "good enough." Even if few large organizations defect outright to Star Office, you can bet that plenty of them are using Star Office as ammunition in their negotiations with Microsoft. Some of them probably even would be willing to give StarOffice a try.
Smaller organizations, on the other hand, will probably just switch (or stick with their current version of MS Office which to Microsoft is just as damaging). This isn't particularly because Star Office just got a lot better either (although it has improved). Microsoft's new registration policy will cut down on the casual piracy that has made their Office software the de-facto standard.
And if this version of MS Office isn't the one that is overtaken by StarOffice, then what is Microsoft going to do to earn your next $400? If current development levels stay the same for StarOffice (and my guess is that they will actually increase as StarOffice gains more use) then in two years Microsoft is going to be hard pressed to justify getting paid hundreds of dollars more for the few true advances that they will add to their office suite.
MS could try and come out with a radically different incompatible format, but my guess is that at this point it would merely accelerate the shift towards StarOffice. After all, if you are faced with the choice between two incompatible office suites, and the sad prospect of migrating all of your data, you might as well pick the choice that costs less. And StarOffice costs a lot less, especially when you figure that upgrades are likely to be free.
As for your questions about the open source version of StarOffice, check out www.openoffice.org. My guess is that Gnome integration hasn't been looked into by Sun because it would require a total rewrite (and it would only be useful to a handful of Linux hackers). The Gnome hackers, on the other hand, seem pretty happy with AbiWord and Gnumeric. And who would blame them.
Personally I am betting on Star Office simply because it already runs well on Windows, making it a relatively easy migration.
I don't know what planet you are from. But here in the real world the only "users" that are likely to use the Mono compiler and language runtime are developers.
In other words, the developers working on the product don't need to query a bunch of lawyers, accountants, and fast food personnel to find out how they should work. They already know how they should work.
The fact of the matter is that the compiler should work very similarly to gcc, or the command line java compilers from Sun and IBM, or every other compiler written in the last 10 years. Especially since their target audience is currently Linux developers.
When Miguel talks about Gnome to hackers, of course he talks about libraries, APIs, and implementation. On the other hand, Miguel makes no bones about modeling his User Interfaces from Microsoft's software. Gnumeric's interface, for example, is close enough to Microsoft Excel that I recently used it to ace a College course in the use of Excel. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to spreadsheet usability aping Excel is the only way to go. I have also seen lots of articles by Miguel where he praises Windows UI, and badmouth's Linux's UI (including Gnome).
Believe me, when it comes to the "user centered" design of a compiler Miguel is as qualified as anyone I can think of to choose the UI design.
Miguel is building Mono because he A) thinks it is cool, B) will probably be popular, C) Microsoft did much of the hard work of designing and documenting the system:).
Basically Gnome has always been about being able to reuse Gnome libraries and components in your language of choice. That's a pretty darn good goal, but it is definitely trickier than it looks. Micrososft and Miguel have both come to the conclusion that the easiest way to solve this problem is via a virtual machine.
Basically, it would allow Python hackers like me to reuse any Mono component using a simple:
import foo
Not only that, but Perl hackers could then import my Python package using a simple:
use bar;
These packages would likewise be available from any other language that had been ported to the CLR. Now, that's some pretty cool stuff.
The fact that Microsoft sponsored.NET, and that they have tied the CLR and the virtual machine with a lot of tech that is basically evil (Passport and Hailstorm), doesn't mean that the idea behind Mono isn't pretty cool.
When it's all said and done Mono will probably be compatible with.NET in the same way that gcc is compatible with Visual C++ (ie. not very), but that's still good because it will give Gnome hackers another tool. Miguel's canonical example is reusing an XML parser. Such a thing isn't really possible with Bonobo, but it will be possible if the XML parser is written as a Mono component.
Personally, I am content using a mixture of Python and C, but the idea behind Mono is intriguing, never mind who wrote the specification.
If my neighbors were terrorists, I would certainly like to think that I would be a part of bringing them to justice.
These innocents are sheltering terrorists despite the fact that they know what their goals are, and that they are guilty of the death of thousands.
3.5 Million Germans died in World War II simply because they let a madmen run their country. Most were almost certainly innocent. Their only crime was that they did not kick Hitler out themselves. Afghanistan is no different now than Germany was then. Most of Afghanistan's people are just like people everywhere. They are just trying to get through the day. However, they are currently shielding known terrorists, and if they won't remove these madmen, then the rest of the world will.
Lives lost because they were caught in the crossfire an unfortunate by-product. But if we don't get the terrorists, they will strike again. And perhaps next time will be worse.
Ok, now I see how you got confused. You are applying first sale doctrine to the copyrighted material. The first sale doctrine permits me to sell my copy of "Carrie" by Steven King. It does not, however, permit me to type the text from "Carrie" into my computer and make a hundred copies for all of my friends.
Likewise, if you went to Staples and bought 500 RedHat CDs, you could sell those 500 RedHat CDs to whomever you wanted (first sale doctrine). You are not really distributing the software, RedHat is. However, if you opened one of those boxes up and started burning copies. Well then, that's clearly contrary to what the default copyright allows and the only way that you could have possibly come to believe that you had any right to do so was to read (and agree to) the GPL.
If you do not agree to the GPL, then you do not have any right to make and distribute copies. Do you see how that works? If you buy RedHat CDs it is RedHat who is making the copies of the software, they are the distributor in the sense that the GPL uses. If you start burning your own CDs and handing them out to friends. Or if you make the binaries available via FTP, then you too become a distributor and must be able to cough up source code on demand.
Once again, just like the example with the novel. It is perfectly legal to sell my copy of a book. It is also perfectly legal to make a personal copy of a book for archival purposes. However, if I make a copy of a book and sell it, I am violating Mr. King's copyright. For this to be legal I would need Mr. King's approval. If he gave me the approval all would be well.
The GPL is nothing more than a standard approval with stipulations. We are welcome to distribute copies of GPLed works as long as they come with source code. It can be assumed that we have read and accepted the GPL if we make copies and distribute them, because under the default copyright this would be a copyright violation.
Eben Moglen says it much better than I do. Check out those links I provided.
Both Apple and Microsoft have been in violation of the GPL, and both speedily rectified this problem when it was pointed out to them.
They might be able to use the GPLed software on their systems, but if they distribute it then the GPL catches them. The only way that they could know that they have a legal right to distribute GPLed code is to read the GPL.
As for the bit about what is the proper criterion for judging a derivative work, you are correct, there is no legal precedent. However, you are overlooking two important facts when you assume that the FSF will not be correct in the judgement that linking programs creates a derivative work. The first of these facts is that pretty much the entire commercial software industry would be in favor of the FSF interpretation. In fact, they would probably want an even stronger opinion that software written to their copyrighted APIs was a derivative work. The second, and most important factor, has to do with the nature of copyright itself. Unlike trademark violations where the onus is on the trademark holder to curtail the public use of their trademark, copyright holders can pick the time and the place to enforce their copyright. Use of someone else's copyrighted material does not cause this material to become public domain. This means that the FSF can pick and choose who they want to prosecute. When the GPL is finally tried in court you can bet that the defendant will be some small underfunded corporation without the benefit of millions of dollars for legal defense. It is even likely that the suit will be brought forward by Sun, IBM, or some other large corporation that has published software under the GPL.
The FSF will get their precedent eventually, and would probably already have it if they were the type to play hard ball.
As for your assumption that a layer of anonymity would make it possible to defeat the GPL, well that's just absurd. If someone hands me a manuscript that they claim to have written and I publish it under a pseudonym and it turns out to be a Steven King novel I will get sued. If I turn over the name of the person who gave me the manuscript I might be able to claim that I was defrauded, but I certainly wouldn't get to keep the profits from the episode. I might stay out of jail, but that would be it.
If you distribute a piece of software that contains GPLed code that you received from a third party, then you are liable if you do not make the source code available. Of course, you could countersue the third party, and if you honestly tried to make it right the FSF is not likely to crucify you, but you had better make sure your efforts are sincere.
I had no intention of misleading people as to the meaning of the GPL. I think it's obvious that neither I nor you nor RMS know the meaning of the GPL, since its meaning has never been determined by a court of law. Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with
I don't mean to be insulting aozilla, but you are completely wrong. As far as things go the actual license part of the GPL is fairly straightforward. RMS certainly knows what it means, and it certainly isn't "full of loopholes." You simply misunderstand how copyright works. For more information see here
and here.
More importantly, the proof is in the pudding. Nearly every major software house has, at one time or another, violated the GPL. And all of them, from Apple to Microsoft, have complied rather than pressed their luck in court. The reason for this is quite simple. They have highly skilled and incredibly expensive lawyers that know that they would lose.
The reason that the GPL has never been tried in court is that the FSF hasn't found anyone stupid enough to go to court. Not only would they face serious financial penalties, but they would also face potential criminal prosecution. Also, unlike most commercial licenses that try to add to the power that copyright generally caries the GPL merely subtracts from those powers. Generally speaking it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted works. It is certainly illegal to distribute those copies. It is also illegal to make a derivative of a copyrighted work and distribute it. The GPL simply allows you to make and distribute copies of their copyrighted software as long as you follow certain rules if you distribute that work. You can "use" the software however you want. This is vastly less oppressive than most EULA's that specify how the software may be used.
As for roaming profiles, Unix has been doing that for years. In fact, Linux does it much better than Windows because all of a users information is going to be found in their home directory, not spread all over the hard drive (and the registry) like in Windows.
In Unix all you need to do is NFS mount your home directory from your NFS server and you are home free.
Or better yet, release the power of X Windows (like they did in Key Largo, Florida), and simply have one Linux server and a whole pile of X terminals. In the Key Largo installation they have 300 users hung off of one commodity Intel based server. So not only do you save in client licenses (and future upgrades), but you cut down on support costs as well (only one machine to configure). Fire all of your useless Windows desk jockeys and replace them with a single Linux administrator.
The application problem, OTOH, is a tough nut to crack. There are still a lot of Windows applications that don't have Linux equivalents. For those applications you could set up a Citrix server and access them via X Windows, I suppose. But there certainly are still issues. Linux has office suites that are credible replacements for MS Office, but it can't replace everything.
Resource management is also a little tricky. PAM + LDAP would probably get you where you want to go, but the GUI certainly isn't as fancy. However, it is easier to script Linux this sort of stuff in Linux. Get a good Linux admin (pay him extra from the money that you were paying to maintain desktops) and resource management won't be a problem.
Re:Try be inovative instead of just replicate ?
on
Linux on the Desktop
·
· Score: 2
Ask and ye shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
Precisely. To be honest your point is a good one, I re-read my original message and it was definitely worded too strongly. Sorry:).
And I understand what it is like conversing in a foreign language. I spent 5 years of my life in South America. Most of the time as the only Yanqui for miles and miles. It is very easy to be misunderstood in a language that isn't your native tongue, even if you are skilled in its use (which you clearly are).
Currently PGP encrypted messages stick out like a sore thumb, and so I can see why it is that you figure that PGP (or GPG) encrypted messages would be detectable from government sponsored messages. You are probably even correct. Heck, most PGP encrypted messages are ascii-armored and have a nifty header proclaiming how they were encrypted. However, terrorists would almost certainly either modify their software so that it output headers that matched the government sponsored crypto, or, even easier, they would simply re-encrypt their encrypted messages with the government sponsored tools.
The only way that the government would know the contents of your message would be to decrypt it (using precious cycles), and when they decrypted it all they would find was a GPG encrypted message!
In other words, if such a system became commonplace they would be worse off than they are now (where most email are simply plain text).
I also agree that using U.S. resources to spy for American companies is wrong. I should have used a smiley so that you would realize I was being sarcastic. Although I am a U.S. citizen until recently I worked for a non U.S. corporation.
Most commercial crypto research is currently being done outside the U.S. because of the U.S.'s past beliefs about exporting crypto. All such a law would do is guarantee that foreign nations would be first to have the advantage of new crypto research.
There is no way that "the rest of the world" is going to give up crypto research. Especially since there is no good way to make mathematics illegal. If the U.S. gives up on crypto research we will simply make way for some other country to move to the forefront.
What is more likely is that the U.S. simply wants to be able to continue to spy on non-U.S. companies that rely on U.S. software. They've done it before.
Some commercial software is going to be necessary in nearly any large installation. Removing Windows, and the Windows desktops that are required, is a huge benefit cost wise whether Linux or Free software is involved at all.
For example, in this particular case, the admins at Key Largo have two boxes that they need to administer. A Windows Citrix server (for legacy applications), and a Linux server for the standard desktop. That is still a huge win for thin clients, even if all of the software is proprietary.
Companies are used to paying for software, and I have no problem with that. I was merely pointing out the costs savings that are derived from removing Windows from the desktops and replacing them with thin clients.
Windows could do the same thing with Citrix, or with Terminal Server. Unfortunately instead of being cheaper to deploy this way, it is more expensive. Not to mention the fact that Windows terminal server will only support a fraction of the users that Linux + X will on the same hardware, and Windows applications generally don't expect to be run from a terminal server.
In other words, my point had more to do with the beauty of X and thin clients than with Linux. Linux just happens to be the first OS suitable for thin client deployment that actually had some competitive applications. The fact that it has several competitive office suites (all much less expensive than MS Office), and the fact that Citrix would allow you to mix in some Windows legacy applications only sweetens the deal.
You must really think that terrorists are stupid. It would be a trivial matter for the terrorist to encrypt their information with real encryption (say GPG), and then encrypt it with the government sponsored fake encryption. The message would look like any other encrypted message, but the government still wouldn't be able to read it.
This also assumes that the terrorists aren't using stenography of some sort to hide their messages in pictures.
In other words the government's ant-crypto plan would only work against everyday, standard, run-of-the-mill, law-abiding, citizens. There is no way that key-escrow, crypto backdoors or any such measure is likely to work against terrorists. Unless, of course, the terrorists were blatant amateurs or idiots (in which case you could probably catch them without crypto back doors). The question then becomes. Why is the government so interested in spying on normal citizens? They know that the terrorists have crypto that they can't break; they likewise know that these terrorists are not likely to give up the use of this crypto.
My guess, because I am not overly paranoid, is that they are simply passing the law to make people feel better. Normal citizens will believe that these laws help combat terrorism, and they will sleep better (even though they are not really any safer).
It has also been shown that the U.S. does fairly extensive spying on legal (but non U.S.) corporations. Since the U.S. writes the bulk of the software used in the world, U.S. laws against strong crypto guarantee that law abiding corporations in other countries are all of a sudden vulnerable to the U.S.'s prying eyes. Since this type of activity is probably good for the U.S. economy, I would say that it is a bonus.
My European friends, on the other hand, would probably disagree. That is likely the reason that the German government is paying for the development of GPG.
Yes, but as the folks in Key Largo, Florida have shown us it is not only possible to put Linux on the desktops. It is possible to put inexpensive thin clients on the desktop connecting to a Linux server via X. That means that not only is the licensing free, but for $200 bucks a desk (sans monitor, but you can reuse those) and the price of a server you can get rid of your desktop troubles all together. So not only would your Linux deployment cost you less than the next upgrade to MS Office, but your long term support costs would almost certainly decrease.
In Key Largo they currently have 300 users hung off one commodity Intel server, but even at half that many users imagine the savings in support and maintenance. There would be precisely one box to administer per hundreds of users. Even small offices can benefit from this sort of arrangement.
The fact of the matter is that if you were really cheap it is possible to turn your existing Windows based computers into Linux based "X terminals." If you already have standardized hardware this sort of thing wouldn't even be difficult to do. When a machine fails replace it with a ThinkNic or an X terminal and throw the old clunker away.
Thin clients have never taken off because there was never really any useable software to run on them. The combination of Linux, StarOffice, and Mozilla, while it certainly has some problems, is far and away the most compelling set of thin client applications that have ever been available. You can bet that people are going to start actually implementing this stuff.
Hah, the only problem that snopes had with this particular story is that it talked about sacrifices instead of risks. The list of things that the story pointed out is factual (as far as that goes). Yes, the British didn't really make any particular effort to single out signers of the Declaration of Independence, and one man was even captured and forced to recant, but it is certainly true that these rich white men would have lived entirely different privileged lives had they not started a war with Great Britain. They knew what they were up against, and they willing risked their lives and fortunes.
In other words they put their money where their mouth was. What more can you ask from a patriot?
Their beliefs sit poorly with a generation that takes their freedom for granted, but make no mistake these people willing gambled their comfy lives in a revolutionary war simply because they felt that freedom was more important than their safety. Calling their "sacrifice" an "urban legend" turns my stomach. Sure, thousands of people who didn't sign that document also suffered and died, but that doesn't make the "sacrifices" made by the signers of the Declaration of Independence any less heroic.
Exactly, let's pretend that the United States mandated the use of crypto with back doors. Does this mean that the terrorists are automatically going to go out and get new crypto with back doors? Heck no. They will almost certainly simply stick with the crypto that they are currently using (without the backdoors) or they will switch to something like gpg which they can be relatively sure is safe.
In other words, soon the only people using good crypto will be the terrorists and Uncle Sam.
The crypto genie is out of the bottle already. People that want good crypto can get it no matter what the U.S. government does. The only people who are likely to listen to a government mandate to use crypto with backdoors are law abiding citizens.
Now why would Uncle Sam want to spy on law abiding citizens?
Re:When 60 billion dollars can buy anything is lat
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
That is spot on. The majority of the Afghanis are almost certainly just like people anywhere. They are almost certainly decent, hard-working, and kind. The sort of people that you wouldn't mind having for neighbors. Unfortunately, both for us and especially for them, their country is currently being run by madmen who harbor terrorists. Both the Germans and Japanese from World War II show what a devastating effect that can have on a populace. Once the madmen were removed, it was relatively easy to rebuild these countries. But while they were gripped by the insanity of their leaders they were willing to order the massacre of millions in concentration camps, and to send their own sons to their deaths as kamikaze pilots.
Madmen must be opposed. Otherwise there can be no safety, peace, or liberty for any of us. In a perfect world the citizens of Afghanistan would take care of these madmen for us, but if they insist on following their lead, then it will probably take a war to straighten things out.
Ha, the entire nation of Germany fought tooth and nail to keep Hitler out of our grasp. However, in the end most Germans today would tell you that they are glad that we did rid their country of Hitler.
Was the price worth it? Probably. Would it have been easier if the German people had risen up against Hitler and his cronies themselves? Definitely. If the German people had rid themselves of this madman it would have saved millions of lives. The fact that the Germans failed to remove Hitler put them in the sights of the Allied forces, and completely destroyed their country. Even so it was a close thing.
We are now at war with these terrorists and everyone that shields them or who would take their place. To do otherwise is to condemn ourselves to live in fear of the next attack. Will some of the people who are hurt be innocent victims, almost certainly. But it is not our fault that they are in the way. All things considered they should be revolting against their leaders themselves. Saving us the trouble of doing it for them.
Can you imagine living in a country that actually encouraged people to acts of terrorism like the one we witnessed today? In some parts of the world people are dancing in the street because of our dead. I can honestly say that this would not be the case if the shoe were on the other foot. If Americans had done this to Palestinians we would find the bastards responsible, and we would hand them over for "trial."
As long as their are people that are willing to do such horrible things what choice do we have but to oppose them?
Yes, I am sure that they will feel exceptionally well validated in hell.
It is certainly possible to have "the final word." The Nazis are no longer a threat to world peace because we (and that includes more than just Americans) went into Germany and rooted them out. We then proceeded to hunt the entire world for those guilty parties that had fled. Once those folks were gone we could go about the task of rebuilding Europe (including Germany).
You can bet that when we find the bastards responsible for this that we will do likewise. Heck, it is even possible that some of our fellow Americans are responsible. It makes no difference what their nationality is. They are madmen and must be brought to justice at any price.
When we are done, those responsible, and all those people who aid them will either be in prison or dead. And the world will be safer for it. Until the next set of crazies.
All that would do is put us at the mercy of the pilots. One crazy in the cockpit would doom everyone on the plane, with nothing any of the passengers could do.
Quite frankly, after today, if I am ever on a plane that is hijacked I plan on doing the only sane thing. I will rush the attackers and pray for a miracle. There were hundreds of people on board those airplanes. If they would have rushed their attackers most of them would have survived, and the WTC would still be standing today.
The only way to win against madman is to oppose them. Damn the costs!
The U.S. certainly isn't perfect, but it is far better than any of the alternatives that this world has ever seen. Sure, our economic policies don't always work 100% effectively, but the U.S. subjugation, as you term it, has been a lot more gentle than any other regime in the history of the world. We even let you keep your beliefs and as much as your culture as you can hang onto in the onslaught of McDonalds and Hollywood. Heck, we even let other countries beat us at the economic game. U.S. influence might be great, but so is the influence of several of our former enemies (Japan and Germany).
As for those mothers in Iraq. It's not our fault that they live in a country lead by a madman. If the U.S. ignored Iraq, and let it's leaders do what they wanted (and attack whomever they pleased) things would only get worse for the normal Iraqi citizen. Don't throw that problem at the feet of the U.S. Sure, we are meddlers, and we drive a hard bargain for our aid, but would you honestly rather have a Middle East dominated by Iraqi warlords?
I agree with your assessment that justice and freedom need to be spread. I would also add education to that mix, however. Educated citizenry will generally choose justice and freedom for themselves, and if they don't, well, there is little that can be done for them. Education is certainly the only viable way to get rid of hate and prejudice (and even that fails to work very well sometimes).
The only rational way to wage war is to play to win, and to win quickly. Prolonging the engagement only guarantees that there will be more casualties. That is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary for peace. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives and would have cost millions of Japanese lives to take Japan, and the U.S. could not afford to leave a hostile nation with the ability to wage war on us in the future to rebuild their nation. It is certainly a tragedy that so many died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but many more would have died had those bombs not been dropped.
War is hell, but once you are engaged the only sane thing to do is to beat your opponent so badly that they surrender quickly and never dream of attacking you again. The leaders of the Axis powers were destroyed, and then America went to war with the destruction that we had caused. We realized that the citizens of these countries were not really to blame, and we helped get these countries back on their feet.
Because of this both Japan and Germany (and Italy as well) are now all U.S. allies, and we wage war the civilized way, economically. And no matter who wins or loses the economic war both of our nations citizens are given better standards of living. Anyone who thinks that the future we have today because of the actions of the Allied forces is worse than the future that Hitler offered is clearly insane.
If Bin Laden feels that he is at war with the U.S. then the attack today was almost certainly an effective one. However, as the Germans learned in World War II it doesn't matter who starts the war, it only matters who finishes it. The world no longer has to worry about the Nazis as a threat because they were utterly destroyed in World War II. Now today a new threat to the United States has arisen, and it will continue to plague us until it is eradicated in the same vicious bloodthirsty manner. The madmen responsible, and all who would support and ally themselves with these terrorists must die. They have declared war on us, and we will give them war until they are dead.
Yes, a new set of madmen will pop up in the future, and they will almost certainly drag the U.S. into yet another conflict. Such conflicts have occurred since the dawn of time, and anyone that thinks that we can wish them away is sadly mistaken. The best that we can do is to try and guarantee that this particular madman isn't able to threaten us in the future.
Also remember that Great Britain did not start the aggression in World War II. Hitler would have attacked Great Britain eventually one way or another. Allowing your enemy to choose the time and place for your battles is a sure fire way to guarantee that you lose. Blaming the Blitz on the British is like blaming a rape victim for her the actions of her assailant.
The real cause of World War II was not the British aggression, but instead it was the failure of the German people to remove Hitler from power. Giving in to madmen, even if they are your leaders, only leads to destruction. Madmen must be opposed at all costs. Any other road leads to destruction.
Yes, and Great Britain and its citizens are free to walk around today only because they opposed the Hitler and his allies. If they had simply capitulated then things would have been very different. The Germans can tell you what it was like to belong to a nation run by a madman. Millions people from the German occupied territories were slaughtered out of hand. Including hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of German citizens. However, once the Nazis were destroyed the danger vanished. Today Germany and Great Britain are even allies. The damage done to German cities was regrettable, but they were the price that had to be paid for peace.
Madmen must be opposed, at whatever cost. The Germans caused Dresden themselves, and not by bombing London. They caused Dresden when they failed to oppose Hitler, and when they followed his lead in his attempt to "take over the world."
So what do we do? Wait until this same group of madmen perpetrates another atrocity. Go read your history books if you think that madmen and terrorists can be stopped by simply giving into their demands. Letting this act of aggression pass will only embolden the terrorists so that their next attack will be even worse.
Madmen, despots, and terrorists can only be opposed. Nations and groups that shelter such people can only be considered enemies, and treated as such. This attack will like prove as costly, in terms of human life, as Pearl Harbor and the United States of America will ignore it at its own peril.
This isn't some school yard squabble where nothing more important than pride is on the line. If we allow terrorists to go unpunished then we will never be safe again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, MS Office is the better product. Of course, for what MS Office costs, I could buy a whole new computer.
The prize, in the software world, doesn't go to the folks that have the best software. It goes to the folks that have the least expensive software that is "good enough." Even if few large organizations defect outright to Star Office, you can bet that plenty of them are using Star Office as ammunition in their negotiations with Microsoft. Some of them probably even would be willing to give StarOffice a try.
Smaller organizations, on the other hand, will probably just switch (or stick with their current version of MS Office which to Microsoft is just as damaging). This isn't particularly because Star Office just got a lot better either (although it has improved). Microsoft's new registration policy will cut down on the casual piracy that has made their Office software the de-facto standard.
And if this version of MS Office isn't the one that is overtaken by StarOffice, then what is Microsoft going to do to earn your next $400? If current development levels stay the same for StarOffice (and my guess is that they will actually increase as StarOffice gains more use) then in two years Microsoft is going to be hard pressed to justify getting paid hundreds of dollars more for the few true advances that they will add to their office suite.
MS could try and come out with a radically different incompatible format, but my guess is that at this point it would merely accelerate the shift towards StarOffice. After all, if you are faced with the choice between two incompatible office suites, and the sad prospect of migrating all of your data, you might as well pick the choice that costs less. And StarOffice costs a lot less, especially when you figure that upgrades are likely to be free.
As for your questions about the open source version of StarOffice, check out www.openoffice.org. My guess is that Gnome integration hasn't been looked into by Sun because it would require a total rewrite (and it would only be useful to a handful of Linux hackers). The Gnome hackers, on the other hand, seem pretty happy with AbiWord and Gnumeric. And who would blame them.
Personally I am betting on Star Office simply because it already runs well on Windows, making it a relatively easy migration.
I don't know what planet you are from. But here in the real world the only "users" that are likely to use the Mono compiler and language runtime are developers.
In other words, the developers working on the product don't need to query a bunch of lawyers, accountants, and fast food personnel to find out how they should work. They already know how they should work.
The fact of the matter is that the compiler should work very similarly to gcc, or the command line java compilers from Sun and IBM, or every other compiler written in the last 10 years. Especially since their target audience is currently Linux developers.
When Miguel talks about Gnome to hackers, of course he talks about libraries, APIs, and implementation. On the other hand, Miguel makes no bones about modeling his User Interfaces from Microsoft's software. Gnumeric's interface, for example, is close enough to Microsoft Excel that I recently used it to ace a College course in the use of Excel. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to spreadsheet usability aping Excel is the only way to go. I have also seen lots of articles by Miguel where he praises Windows UI, and badmouth's Linux's UI (including Gnome).
Believe me, when it comes to the "user centered" design of a compiler Miguel is as qualified as anyone I can think of to choose the UI design.
I hope you are trolling, but you probably aren't.
Miguel is building Mono because he A) thinks it is cool, B) will probably be popular, C) Microsoft did much of the hard work of designing and documenting the system :).
Basically Gnome has always been about being able to reuse Gnome libraries and components in your language of choice. That's a pretty darn good goal, but it is definitely trickier than it looks. Micrososft and Miguel have both come to the conclusion that the easiest way to solve this problem is via a virtual machine.
Basically, it would allow Python hackers like me to reuse any Mono component using a simple:
import foo
Not only that, but Perl hackers could then import my Python package using a simple:
use bar;
These packages would likewise be available from any other language that had been ported to the CLR. Now, that's some pretty cool stuff.
The fact that Microsoft sponsored .NET, and that they have tied the CLR and the virtual machine with a lot of tech that is basically evil (Passport and Hailstorm), doesn't mean that the idea behind Mono isn't pretty cool.
When it's all said and done Mono will probably be compatible with .NET in the same way that gcc is compatible with Visual C++ (ie. not very), but that's still good because it will give Gnome hackers another tool. Miguel's canonical example is reusing an XML parser. Such a thing isn't really possible with Bonobo, but it will be possible if the XML parser is written as a Mono component.
Personally, I am content using a mixture of Python and C, but the idea behind Mono is intriguing, never mind who wrote the specification.
Wow, that's spooky.
If my neighbors were terrorists, I would certainly like to think that I would be a part of bringing them to justice.
These innocents are sheltering terrorists despite the fact that they know what their goals are, and that they are guilty of the death of thousands.
3.5 Million Germans died in World War II simply because they let a madmen run their country. Most were almost certainly innocent. Their only crime was that they did not kick Hitler out themselves. Afghanistan is no different now than Germany was then. Most of Afghanistan's people are just like people everywhere. They are just trying to get through the day. However, they are currently shielding known terrorists, and if they won't remove these madmen, then the rest of the world will.
Lives lost because they were caught in the crossfire an unfortunate by-product. But if we don't get the terrorists, they will strike again. And perhaps next time will be worse.
Ok, now I see how you got confused. You are applying first sale doctrine to the copyrighted material. The first sale doctrine permits me to sell my copy of "Carrie" by Steven King. It does not, however, permit me to type the text from "Carrie" into my computer and make a hundred copies for all of my friends.
Likewise, if you went to Staples and bought 500 RedHat CDs, you could sell those 500 RedHat CDs to whomever you wanted (first sale doctrine). You are not really distributing the software, RedHat is. However, if you opened one of those boxes up and started burning copies. Well then, that's clearly contrary to what the default copyright allows and the only way that you could have possibly come to believe that you had any right to do so was to read (and agree to) the GPL.
If you do not agree to the GPL, then you do not have any right to make and distribute copies. Do you see how that works? If you buy RedHat CDs it is RedHat who is making the copies of the software, they are the distributor in the sense that the GPL uses. If you start burning your own CDs and handing them out to friends. Or if you make the binaries available via FTP, then you too become a distributor and must be able to cough up source code on demand.
Once again, just like the example with the novel. It is perfectly legal to sell my copy of a book. It is also perfectly legal to make a personal copy of a book for archival purposes. However, if I make a copy of a book and sell it, I am violating Mr. King's copyright. For this to be legal I would need Mr. King's approval. If he gave me the approval all would be well.
The GPL is nothing more than a standard approval with stipulations. We are welcome to distribute copies of GPLed works as long as they come with source code. It can be assumed that we have read and accepted the GPL if we make copies and distribute them, because under the default copyright this would be a copyright violation.
Eben Moglen says it much better than I do. Check out those links I provided.
Both Apple and Microsoft have been in violation of the GPL, and both speedily rectified this problem when it was pointed out to them.
They might be able to use the GPLed software on their systems, but if they distribute it then the GPL catches them. The only way that they could know that they have a legal right to distribute GPLed code is to read the GPL.
As for the bit about what is the proper criterion for judging a derivative work, you are correct, there is no legal precedent. However, you are overlooking two important facts when you assume that the FSF will not be correct in the judgement that linking programs creates a derivative work. The first of these facts is that pretty much the entire commercial software industry would be in favor of the FSF interpretation. In fact, they would probably want an even stronger opinion that software written to their copyrighted APIs was a derivative work. The second, and most important factor, has to do with the nature of copyright itself. Unlike trademark violations where the onus is on the trademark holder to curtail the public use of their trademark, copyright holders can pick the time and the place to enforce their copyright. Use of someone else's copyrighted material does not cause this material to become public domain. This means that the FSF can pick and choose who they want to prosecute. When the GPL is finally tried in court you can bet that the defendant will be some small underfunded corporation without the benefit of millions of dollars for legal defense. It is even likely that the suit will be brought forward by Sun, IBM, or some other large corporation that has published software under the GPL.
The FSF will get their precedent eventually, and would probably already have it if they were the type to play hard ball.
As for your assumption that a layer of anonymity would make it possible to defeat the GPL, well that's just absurd. If someone hands me a manuscript that they claim to have written and I publish it under a pseudonym and it turns out to be a Steven King novel I will get sued. If I turn over the name of the person who gave me the manuscript I might be able to claim that I was defrauded, but I certainly wouldn't get to keep the profits from the episode. I might stay out of jail, but that would be it.
If you distribute a piece of software that contains GPLed code that you received from a third party, then you are liable if you do not make the source code available. Of course, you could countersue the third party, and if you honestly tried to make it right the FSF is not likely to crucify you, but you had better make sure your efforts are sincere.
As for roaming profiles, Unix has been doing that for years. In fact, Linux does it much better than Windows because all of a users information is going to be found in their home directory, not spread all over the hard drive (and the registry) like in Windows.
In Unix all you need to do is NFS mount your home directory from your NFS server and you are home free.
Or better yet, release the power of X Windows (like they did in Key Largo, Florida), and simply have one Linux server and a whole pile of X terminals. In the Key Largo installation they have 300 users hung off of one commodity Intel based server. So not only do you save in client licenses (and future upgrades), but you cut down on support costs as well (only one machine to configure). Fire all of your useless Windows desk jockeys and replace them with a single Linux administrator.
The application problem, OTOH, is a tough nut to crack. There are still a lot of Windows applications that don't have Linux equivalents. For those applications you could set up a Citrix server and access them via X Windows, I suppose. But there certainly are still issues. Linux has office suites that are credible replacements for MS Office, but it can't replace everything.
Resource management is also a little tricky. PAM + LDAP would probably get you where you want to go, but the GUI certainly isn't as fancy. However, it is easier to script Linux this sort of stuff in Linux. Get a good Linux admin (pay him extra from the money that you were paying to maintain desktops) and resource management won't be a problem.
Ask and ye shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
http://www.abisource.com/awml.dtd
http://xml.openoffice.org/
Precisely. To be honest your point is a good one, I re-read my original message and it was definitely worded too strongly. Sorry :).
And I understand what it is like conversing in a foreign language. I spent 5 years of my life in South America. Most of the time as the only Yanqui for miles and miles. It is very easy to be misunderstood in a language that isn't your native tongue, even if you are skilled in its use (which you clearly are).
Currently PGP encrypted messages stick out like a sore thumb, and so I can see why it is that you figure that PGP (or GPG) encrypted messages would be detectable from government sponsored messages. You are probably even correct. Heck, most PGP encrypted messages are ascii-armored and have a nifty header proclaiming how they were encrypted. However, terrorists would almost certainly either modify their software so that it output headers that matched the government sponsored crypto, or, even easier, they would simply re-encrypt their encrypted messages with the government sponsored tools.
The only way that the government would know the contents of your message would be to decrypt it (using precious cycles), and when they decrypted it all they would find was a GPG encrypted message!
In other words, if such a system became commonplace they would be worse off than they are now (where most email are simply plain text).
I also agree that using U.S. resources to spy for American companies is wrong. I should have used a smiley so that you would realize I was being sarcastic. Although I am a U.S. citizen until recently I worked for a non U.S. corporation.
Thanks for the discussion.
Most commercial crypto research is currently being done outside the U.S. because of the U.S.'s past beliefs about exporting crypto. All such a law would do is guarantee that foreign nations would be first to have the advantage of new crypto research.
There is no way that "the rest of the world" is going to give up crypto research. Especially since there is no good way to make mathematics illegal. If the U.S. gives up on crypto research we will simply make way for some other country to move to the forefront.
What is more likely is that the U.S. simply wants to be able to continue to spy on non-U.S. companies that rely on U.S. software. They've done it before.
Some commercial software is going to be necessary in nearly any large installation. Removing Windows, and the Windows desktops that are required, is a huge benefit cost wise whether Linux or Free software is involved at all.
For example, in this particular case, the admins at Key Largo have two boxes that they need to administer. A Windows Citrix server (for legacy applications), and a Linux server for the standard desktop. That is still a huge win for thin clients, even if all of the software is proprietary.
Companies are used to paying for software, and I have no problem with that. I was merely pointing out the costs savings that are derived from removing Windows from the desktops and replacing them with thin clients.
Windows could do the same thing with Citrix, or with Terminal Server. Unfortunately instead of being cheaper to deploy this way, it is more expensive. Not to mention the fact that Windows terminal server will only support a fraction of the users that Linux + X will on the same hardware, and Windows applications generally don't expect to be run from a terminal server.
In other words, my point had more to do with the beauty of X and thin clients than with Linux. Linux just happens to be the first OS suitable for thin client deployment that actually had some competitive applications. The fact that it has several competitive office suites (all much less expensive than MS Office), and the fact that Citrix would allow you to mix in some Windows legacy applications only sweetens the deal.
You must really think that terrorists are stupid. It would be a trivial matter for the terrorist to encrypt their information with real encryption (say GPG), and then encrypt it with the government sponsored fake encryption. The message would look like any other encrypted message, but the government still wouldn't be able to read it.
This also assumes that the terrorists aren't using stenography of some sort to hide their messages in pictures.
In other words the government's ant-crypto plan would only work against everyday, standard, run-of-the-mill, law-abiding, citizens. There is no way that key-escrow, crypto backdoors or any such measure is likely to work against terrorists. Unless, of course, the terrorists were blatant amateurs or idiots (in which case you could probably catch them without crypto back doors). The question then becomes. Why is the government so interested in spying on normal citizens? They know that the terrorists have crypto that they can't break; they likewise know that these terrorists are not likely to give up the use of this crypto.
My guess, because I am not overly paranoid, is that they are simply passing the law to make people feel better. Normal citizens will believe that these laws help combat terrorism, and they will sleep better (even though they are not really any safer).
It has also been shown that the U.S. does fairly extensive spying on legal (but non U.S.) corporations. Since the U.S. writes the bulk of the software used in the world, U.S. laws against strong crypto guarantee that law abiding corporations in other countries are all of a sudden vulnerable to the U.S.'s prying eyes. Since this type of activity is probably good for the U.S. economy, I would say that it is a bonus.
My European friends, on the other hand, would probably disagree. That is likely the reason that the German government is paying for the development of GPG.
Yes, but as the folks in Key Largo, Florida have shown us it is not only possible to put Linux on the desktops. It is possible to put inexpensive thin clients on the desktop connecting to a Linux server via X. That means that not only is the licensing free, but for $200 bucks a desk (sans monitor, but you can reuse those) and the price of a server you can get rid of your desktop troubles all together. So not only would your Linux deployment cost you less than the next upgrade to MS Office, but your long term support costs would almost certainly decrease.
In Key Largo they currently have 300 users hung off one commodity Intel server, but even at half that many users imagine the savings in support and maintenance. There would be precisely one box to administer per hundreds of users. Even small offices can benefit from this sort of arrangement.
The fact of the matter is that if you were really cheap it is possible to turn your existing Windows based computers into Linux based "X terminals." If you already have standardized hardware this sort of thing wouldn't even be difficult to do. When a machine fails replace it with a ThinkNic or an X terminal and throw the old clunker away.
Thin clients have never taken off because there was never really any useable software to run on them. The combination of Linux, StarOffice, and Mozilla, while it certainly has some problems, is far and away the most compelling set of thin client applications that have ever been available. You can bet that people are going to start actually implementing this stuff.
Hah, the only problem that snopes had with this particular story is that it talked about sacrifices instead of risks. The list of things that the story pointed out is factual (as far as that goes). Yes, the British didn't really make any particular effort to single out signers of the Declaration of Independence, and one man was even captured and forced to recant, but it is certainly true that these rich white men would have lived entirely different privileged lives had they not started a war with Great Britain. They knew what they were up against, and they willing risked their lives and fortunes.
In other words they put their money where their mouth was. What more can you ask from a patriot?
Their beliefs sit poorly with a generation that takes their freedom for granted, but make no mistake these people willing gambled their comfy lives in a revolutionary war simply because they felt that freedom was more important than their safety. Calling their "sacrifice" an "urban legend" turns my stomach. Sure, thousands of people who didn't sign that document also suffered and died, but that doesn't make the "sacrifices" made by the signers of the Declaration of Independence any less heroic.
Exactly, let's pretend that the United States mandated the use of crypto with back doors. Does this mean that the terrorists are automatically going to go out and get new crypto with back doors? Heck no. They will almost certainly simply stick with the crypto that they are currently using (without the backdoors) or they will switch to something like gpg which they can be relatively sure is safe.
In other words, soon the only people using good crypto will be the terrorists and Uncle Sam.
The crypto genie is out of the bottle already. People that want good crypto can get it no matter what the U.S. government does. The only people who are likely to listen to a government mandate to use crypto with backdoors are law abiding citizens.
Now why would Uncle Sam want to spy on law abiding citizens?
That is spot on. The majority of the Afghanis are almost certainly just like people anywhere. They are almost certainly decent, hard-working, and kind. The sort of people that you wouldn't mind having for neighbors. Unfortunately, both for us and especially for them, their country is currently being run by madmen who harbor terrorists. Both the Germans and Japanese from World War II show what a devastating effect that can have on a populace. Once the madmen were removed, it was relatively easy to rebuild these countries. But while they were gripped by the insanity of their leaders they were willing to order the massacre of millions in concentration camps, and to send their own sons to their deaths as kamikaze pilots.
Madmen must be opposed. Otherwise there can be no safety, peace, or liberty for any of us. In a perfect world the citizens of Afghanistan would take care of these madmen for us, but if they insist on following their lead, then it will probably take a war to straighten things out.
God help us all.
Ha, the entire nation of Germany fought tooth and nail to keep Hitler out of our grasp. However, in the end most Germans today would tell you that they are glad that we did rid their country of Hitler.
Was the price worth it? Probably. Would it have been easier if the German people had risen up against Hitler and his cronies themselves? Definitely. If the German people had rid themselves of this madman it would have saved millions of lives. The fact that the Germans failed to remove Hitler put them in the sights of the Allied forces, and completely destroyed their country. Even so it was a close thing.
We are now at war with these terrorists and everyone that shields them or who would take their place. To do otherwise is to condemn ourselves to live in fear of the next attack. Will some of the people who are hurt be innocent victims, almost certainly. But it is not our fault that they are in the way. All things considered they should be revolting against their leaders themselves. Saving us the trouble of doing it for them.
Can you imagine living in a country that actually encouraged people to acts of terrorism like the one we witnessed today? In some parts of the world people are dancing in the street because of our dead. I can honestly say that this would not be the case if the shoe were on the other foot. If Americans had done this to Palestinians we would find the bastards responsible, and we would hand them over for "trial."
As long as their are people that are willing to do such horrible things what choice do we have but to oppose them?
Yes, I am sure that they will feel exceptionally well validated in hell.
It is certainly possible to have "the final word." The Nazis are no longer a threat to world peace because we (and that includes more than just Americans) went into Germany and rooted them out. We then proceeded to hunt the entire world for those guilty parties that had fled. Once those folks were gone we could go about the task of rebuilding Europe (including Germany).
You can bet that when we find the bastards responsible for this that we will do likewise. Heck, it is even possible that some of our fellow Americans are responsible. It makes no difference what their nationality is. They are madmen and must be brought to justice at any price.
When we are done, those responsible, and all those people who aid them will either be in prison or dead. And the world will be safer for it. Until the next set of crazies.
All that would do is put us at the mercy of the pilots. One crazy in the cockpit would doom everyone on the plane, with nothing any of the passengers could do.
Quite frankly, after today, if I am ever on a plane that is hijacked I plan on doing the only sane thing. I will rush the attackers and pray for a miracle. There were hundreds of people on board those airplanes. If they would have rushed their attackers most of them would have survived, and the WTC would still be standing today.
The only way to win against madman is to oppose them. Damn the costs!
The U.S. certainly isn't perfect, but it is far better than any of the alternatives that this world has ever seen. Sure, our economic policies don't always work 100% effectively, but the U.S. subjugation, as you term it, has been a lot more gentle than any other regime in the history of the world. We even let you keep your beliefs and as much as your culture as you can hang onto in the onslaught of McDonalds and Hollywood. Heck, we even let other countries beat us at the economic game. U.S. influence might be great, but so is the influence of several of our former enemies (Japan and Germany).
As for those mothers in Iraq. It's not our fault that they live in a country lead by a madman. If the U.S. ignored Iraq, and let it's leaders do what they wanted (and attack whomever they pleased) things would only get worse for the normal Iraqi citizen. Don't throw that problem at the feet of the U.S. Sure, we are meddlers, and we drive a hard bargain for our aid, but would you honestly rather have a Middle East dominated by Iraqi warlords?
I agree with your assessment that justice and freedom need to be spread. I would also add education to that mix, however. Educated citizenry will generally choose justice and freedom for themselves, and if they don't, well, there is little that can be done for them. Education is certainly the only viable way to get rid of hate and prejudice (and even that fails to work very well sometimes).
The only rational way to wage war is to play to win, and to win quickly. Prolonging the engagement only guarantees that there will be more casualties. That is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary for peace. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives and would have cost millions of Japanese lives to take Japan, and the U.S. could not afford to leave a hostile nation with the ability to wage war on us in the future to rebuild their nation. It is certainly a tragedy that so many died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but many more would have died had those bombs not been dropped.
War is hell, but once you are engaged the only sane thing to do is to beat your opponent so badly that they surrender quickly and never dream of attacking you again. The leaders of the Axis powers were destroyed, and then America went to war with the destruction that we had caused. We realized that the citizens of these countries were not really to blame, and we helped get these countries back on their feet.
Because of this both Japan and Germany (and Italy as well) are now all U.S. allies, and we wage war the civilized way, economically. And no matter who wins or loses the economic war both of our nations citizens are given better standards of living. Anyone who thinks that the future we have today because of the actions of the Allied forces is worse than the future that Hitler offered is clearly insane.
If Bin Laden feels that he is at war with the U.S. then the attack today was almost certainly an effective one. However, as the Germans learned in World War II it doesn't matter who starts the war, it only matters who finishes it. The world no longer has to worry about the Nazis as a threat because they were utterly destroyed in World War II. Now today a new threat to the United States has arisen, and it will continue to plague us until it is eradicated in the same vicious bloodthirsty manner. The madmen responsible, and all who would support and ally themselves with these terrorists must die. They have declared war on us, and we will give them war until they are dead.
Yes, a new set of madmen will pop up in the future, and they will almost certainly drag the U.S. into yet another conflict. Such conflicts have occurred since the dawn of time, and anyone that thinks that we can wish them away is sadly mistaken. The best that we can do is to try and guarantee that this particular madman isn't able to threaten us in the future.
Also remember that Great Britain did not start the aggression in World War II. Hitler would have attacked Great Britain eventually one way or another. Allowing your enemy to choose the time and place for your battles is a sure fire way to guarantee that you lose. Blaming the Blitz on the British is like blaming a rape victim for her the actions of her assailant.
The real cause of World War II was not the British aggression, but instead it was the failure of the German people to remove Hitler from power. Giving in to madmen, even if they are your leaders, only leads to destruction. Madmen must be opposed at all costs. Any other road leads to destruction.
Yes, and Great Britain and its citizens are free to walk around today only because they opposed the Hitler and his allies. If they had simply capitulated then things would have been very different. The Germans can tell you what it was like to belong to a nation run by a madman. Millions people from the German occupied territories were slaughtered out of hand. Including hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of German citizens. However, once the Nazis were destroyed the danger vanished. Today Germany and Great Britain are even allies. The damage done to German cities was regrettable, but they were the price that had to be paid for peace.
Madmen must be opposed, at whatever cost. The Germans caused Dresden themselves, and not by bombing London. They caused Dresden when they failed to oppose Hitler, and when they followed his lead in his attempt to "take over the world."
So what do we do? Wait until this same group of madmen perpetrates another atrocity. Go read your history books if you think that madmen and terrorists can be stopped by simply giving into their demands. Letting this act of aggression pass will only embolden the terrorists so that their next attack will be even worse.
Madmen, despots, and terrorists can only be opposed. Nations and groups that shelter such people can only be considered enemies, and treated as such. This attack will like prove as costly, in terms of human life, as Pearl Harbor and the United States of America will ignore it at its own peril.
This isn't some school yard squabble where nothing more important than pride is on the line. If we allow terrorists to go unpunished then we will never be safe again.