There is a similar service in the US, too, but it isn't as well known.
At PayMyBills, you get a new permanent snail-mail address (only for bills), they scan in your bill (PDF) and also enter the relevant info into forms (so lynx _does_ work). All you do is enter the amount you wish to pay and click.
When you first sign up, they give you all the forms your bank will need (via postal mail) to set up the link with PayMyBills. And they let you issue 'electronic checks' without having a bill, too, so you can pay off that loan to your uncle without him needing to send you a bill... Oh, and they send you an e-mail to the address of your choice both when you get a new bill, and when it becomes close to being due.
And they let you try it out for free -- sign up, pay up to 3 bills per month with no charge, then up to 25 (IIRC) is about $9 per month. And all you need to do to become a paying customer is send them more than 3 bills.
I've been using the free account for a bit, and I'm pleased. Yah, it's a comercial outfit, but they do have a great privacy statement, and their contract terms are fair to both sides. And since my bank doesn't have online banking... *braces for laughter* well, it works great for me.
[[quote]] here I have the biggest issue with content regulation is that the Australian government has decided to implement the content regulation on a nation wide level irrespective of who is trying to look at the content.
To me, this is synonomous to saying that since drivers aged between 18 and 25 cause the most accidents on the road, we should ban all drivers.
The brush is simply too broad and everyone is being tarred.
In my mind, this is the issue with content regulation - the fact that it is applied on a macro and not a micro level. [[/quote]]
I agree with your basic premise -- that requiring all the people to conform to a law because a few are at risk is foolish.
There are, however, additional issues to consider here. Firstly, current filtering/rating software is grossly ineffective, cutting off sites with such topics as Bible discussion, the Quran (sp?), and Human Anatomy. This is a travesty because it forces such sites to "rate or be excluded."
Secondly, and perhaps more to the point, is that any Government -- especially one which claims to be 'free' -- does not have the right to censor information. (note: yes, there are some exceptions for classified data, but even this should be released when no longer sensitive) Should parents be concerned about what their children view on the Net? Absolutely? Should they install filtering software if they can't be with their kids all the time? Perhaps, I leave it to the parent. But that's the very point -- the responsiblity, and more importantly the choice, rests on the parent. By enforcing such a filtering law, the government is, in effect, saying that their citizens are so foolish that they cannot decide for themselves or their children what is "appropriate."
Is there content available on the net that I wish wasn't there? You bet. Do I try to stop it? Hell no. Freedom of speech is a basic freedom -- and to take it away from even one person or group is to hinder us all.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler "One People, one Government, one Ruler" - Adolf Hitler (translated)
Thought the German-impaired might like to know that...:)
Posted by the Proteus
Re:Customizing Netscape's "Search" button
on
Google is launched!
·
· Score: 1
Hit the search button, and it'll take you to some Netscape page. Then look to the left of the gray box, and you'll see the names of a bunch of other search engines. Click on Google, and then there will be a checkbox that asks if you want to keep Google as your search engine. Check it, and then whenever you hit the search button again, it'll take you to the Netscape/Google search.
After that, in 4.x, you can also use "?query" in your location bar (where query is your search term) to search the Netscape/Google engine.
There have been a lot of comments along the lines of "what's the big deal? isn't this just search & seizure under the 4th Ammendment?"
Legally, perhaps, but not in the intent of the 4th. What a lot of judges, and now seemingly a lot of the populace, seem to forget is that a law's intent is extremely relevant.
In conventional searches, a warrant is issued based on 'reasonable cause' of illegal activity. There must be enough circumstantial evidence, in the opinion of a judge, for the target to be a suspect in a crime. The problem with allowing keyboard sniffing and other Key-recovery methods is that many people -- including judges -- view the mere use of encryption to be suspicious activity. This means that warrants "just to see" will be easier to come by.
Also, using a sealed warrant to provide an electronic means of reading all your data is much more dangerous to us all because the average user -- even the above average user -- would not know when or if their information was being scanned. The 4th Ammendment was meant to provide protection for citizens from authorities doing random searches. The way this is proposed provides a very large, very easy to use loophole for the authorities.
While I certianly have no illegal activity to hide, consider this -- how many in the/. community have ever 'hacked' someone's box? However innocently? I know several people who have managed to break into websites and make minor changes, then notify the admin how to fix it. This, to us, is honorable and there is nothing wrong with it. But to a lot of people, it is crime. So what if you have some security protocol info on your PC? And you, of course, have it encrypted? Whoops. you're under suspicion.
This is certainly a _legal_ exercise -- but it still bothers me.
01 - just my 2 bits. IANAL, but I play one at work.:P
The ACLU helps defend matters relating to civil rights.
This, IMHO, is indeed a violation of basic rights, not the least of which is freedom of speech. This bill allows organizations to, among other things, dictate and enforce regulations regarding "proper use" of their software. That means that Microsoft (for example) could say "you are not allowed to use Word to disparage Microsoft" and shut down your license if you do. Given the fact that most people don't read their EULA's, items of this nature can and will appear.
Another effective tack would be to vote with your money. Educate your employer about the dangers of using UCITA-protected software and suggest free or non-UCITA alternatives. It sounds to me from the nature of this bill that would merely allow EULA's to contain clauses allowing things such as remote shutdown -- if product EULA's don't include this clause, then UCITA is ineffective. Simply put, if it's UCITA, don't buy it.
Also, take the time to let vendors know that you will not purchase any software from them if it is protected under UCITA.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (IANAL), nor a lawmaker -- my interpretations are subject to error. Further, I am human...:P
This might be true: I cannot prove otherwise. However, think about these things:
Janet Reno has nothing to do with foreign policy... why would she write this letter directly to a foreign power? Would it not make more sense to write a letter to some US diplomat who is involved in foreign affairs?
There is no way to verify that this letter is authentic (meaning from Janet Reno), or that it ever existed.
This type of situation is screaming "hoax" -- it's the perfect topic for a practical joke: something that is close to the hearts of the tech community and has been heatedly battled over many times before.
As with anything that is unsubstantiated, take it with a grain (or perhaps a cup) of salt. A wise person once said "believe half of what you hear, and only 10% of what you read." That is, without proof...
You make good points. However, the main sales increase that I would expect would be in the busines area.
you mention that people use an app because, among other reasons, it's what they are given at work. Now, imagine a company that, like most of my customers, uses Macs, Unix, and Windows. Now look at StarOffice being the same interface, writing the same file formats, etc. on all those platforms. "Nice," says the IT Manager. Now add the fact that StarOffice can import and export MS formats, and viola! An IT Manager's dream: an office suite that's reasonably priced, multi-platform, and MS-interoperable.
And, if you want to migrate a Win user to, say, Linux... you don't have to have them re-learn the office suite. Users like that!
Me, I'd bet on great sales increases on the corporate end...
Then again, I could be completely wrong... these things happen:P
Linux is the "Java" of 1999. It won't matter much once the hype dies down.
I hope you're right and Linux is the next Java -- Java has now lost 98.6% of it's hype (yes, I pulled that % out of my butt), however, it is an increasingly relevant technology. I have seen many, many of our customers in the past few months move to thin-client solutions for managing entire manufacturing lines: and all are Java-based.
If, two years from now, there is no hype and Linux is just accepted as a viable business solution, I will be ecstatic!
First of all, SlashDot does cover the various *BSD distributions, as well as Solaris news. Also, Windows and BeOS news is mentioned also.
Keep in mind, there are so many distros of Linux that there is more Linux news to be reported than other OS news.
Also, all stories are posted from user-submitted stories -- you want to see a story on a non-Linux OS? If it's relevant news, submit it, and if it is indeed relevant, it will probably be posted!
While I do understand your frustration with RedHat's apparent lack of concern for the interests of the community in decisions like this, I must point out a few things:
First of all, RedHat has donated resources to projects that help the community. At some level, they do have concern for the progression of the community.
Secondly, the Open Source or Free Software or whatever movement you happen to support is based as much on competition as on cooperation. How many Web servers are there for linux? I can think of at least three. Why? They each offer something different. Yet they compete. Lack of competition can cause lower quality products -- why add new features or fix bugs when you're the only choice?
Also, consider this -- why is Microsoft so universally disliked among the Linux/*BSD community? Precicely because there is no competition! That has lead to buggy, unstable, bloated code. Competition, and the freedom to compete, is the very basis of the Free Software and Open Source movements. (and other orgs like them)
RedHat is a business. Sometimes they will do things that benefit themselves more than the community as a whole. But the publicity and corporate acceptance of Linux that RedHat is responsible for has been, and continues to be, of immeasurable benefit to the cause.
Just because RedHat makes smart business decisions that don't always jive with the idyllic objectives of the community does not make them evil or 'The Microsoft of Linux'. Last time I checked, RedHat was far from monopoly status.
(Personally, I use Debian because I find RedHat overly bloated for my taste -- I mention it so that no one thinks I am some kind of religious RedHat supporter. But neither am I a RedHat hater.)
Hate to pick this out of a crowd of comments like it, but it's a good example of something that really annoys me here.
That really did not need to be pointed out, not to mention that it isn't quite accurate (two different connotations is not neccessarily redundant). Basically, while it isn't flamebait, it is a rather useless and picky comment.
I'm sure you've made your share of grammatical errors, so don't correct grammar/spelling unless it is necessary in order to clarify a comment.
While I agree with your points, for the most part, I must point out some minor things.
Firstly, keep in mind that most companies thrive less on actual strength than on customer perception. By defining their own OpenSource license, they put their name in the headlines: at least for us in the OSI/FreeSoftware community. (side point: how do you classify those who support both concepts?)
Secondly, I object to stating that IBM stands as an enemy and not a friend because they file many, many software patents. While I do agree that there is a level of hypocrasy in claiming to support the OSI while filing software patents, this doesn't mean they are an enemy. There is great danger in the mentality of "if you are not with us, you are against us." The OSI is young yet, and IBM has no way of knowing if it will last -- what I see in the software patent frenzy is an attempt to create a "safety net" while cautiously supporting OSI. I suspect that as the OSI continues to gain support, IBM will become less paranoid.
Besides, at a company that large, what else do the lawyers have to do?:P Might as well set them up writing an OSD-compatible license than writing proprietary ones, no?
INAL, nor am I expert. Just my $0.02 import disclaimer;
As has been said ad nauseum, we do not yet know if there is a GPL violation. Things to consider:
is there, in fact, and GPL'd code?
was it modified? If not, then links could be provided to the original source upon request, and the GPL would be intact.
if there is GPL'd code, will they be providing source for those GPL'd apps?
Remember, it's not a violation until we know it's a violation. There may not even be any GPL'd code involved. As someone else pointed out, the people who claim "BeOS/Linx hybrid" are marketing people. Most of them don't know a phone jack from an ethernet port.
Jumping on this too quickly, and too harshly, could do more harm than good. Even if, when this does come out, a GPL violation is found, remember that it may be accidental -- and respond first with a tactful notice. If the programmers are typical, they will immediately take steps to correct the violation... if not, then legal action might be explored by the community.
Either way, the community as a whole will get a lot farther using dignity and tact than sending off flame. Think about it: how would you respond to a literal flame? Extinguish it... is that what we want? I thought not.
What we see here is a fine example of the tone and clarity that should be used when stating or defending one's position. This is especially the case when defending Linux or Open Source to media members and/or software companies that publish uninformed articles decrying them.
Sorry to pick on this one post in particular, I know there are others like it... but I feel I must point out an error before the community begins to rail on Demon.
most irritated to learn that they are censoring things.
Demon is not, they are covering themselves and their users so they don't get prosecuted. The censorship that exists is in the UK's defamation laws. If you want to direct your outrage somewhere, it would be more productive to attack the disease (outdated legislation), than the symptom (Demon's compliance with the outdated legislation.)
I do feel I need to rebutt one thing - Java's ability to deploy via the web (or an intranet) is key. Most Java-based applications I see are in Servlet/Applet contexts, not full Applications. Besides, since alternate browsers -- most notably netscape -- will definately support pure Java and not some MS adaptation, the web side will be safe.
Additionally, Java applications are often deployed containing at least one JVM and providing links to alternates. In the online age (god, that sounded cheesy) people will download JVM's that are 100% compatible! It's up to the programmers to force the issue, that's all.
There are a lot of comments pointing out that MS will have a 100% Java VM for Windows, and that if this occurs, it would force would-be developers to choose.
Not so. There are an assortment of JVM's available, and nearly every commercially-available package I've run across either includes a JVM or provides links to one. If developers say "sorry, you need a 100% Compatible JVM to run our package" - then people will get a 100% Compatible JVM. Especially since many of them are free.
Fortunately for Java programmers (like myself), Sun still has a goodly amount of control over the Java standard.
I'll go with your "Latte" nomer... Say MS develops Latte as an alternative, E&E'd version of Java -- MS cannot "break" the code for the Java VM portion and still call it "Java Compatible" or the like. Since Sun has control of the Java trademark, MS will be hard-pressed to successfully market Latte.
Also, since Java applets have wider distribution potential then Latte applets would have (what webmaster in their right mind would dileberately exclude non-MS users?), Java will remain strong for web-based programming.
The support for the Java platform will, however, need to come most strongly from the programming community. Only in this way can Java continue to progress in spite of MS E&E.
As much as it pains me to admit it... I can't find any fault with M$ here.
Many, many of the things that M$ has done - past, present, and no doubt future - do constitute takeover tactics... but not this. Ask yourself one simple question: would any company trying to gain a foothold in the Internet marketplace (and who has the money) not do whatever possible to be in on I2?
Very simply put - M$ now has a seat at the I2 table, but it is far from a controlling seat. This one is just a smart business move folks. Why? PR, market positioning, a voice on standards, etc.
For those worried about an M$ takeover of I2: I wouldn't start worrying just yet. M$ is but one voice here.
Ugh. I feel so dirty, defending M$ like that... but the truth must be told:P
I don't like paying $7 for a movie either, but piracy is a contributing factor to high theater prices anyway - I wonder how this is going to affect us in the long run? Anyone worry about the gov't restricting digital video formats? I sure do now...
I can see where engineers would love this - they could build a functional model using conventional techniques, then use one of these things to get the shape data into an anylysis program.
I can see technology like this being applied to reduce the amount of time engineers and others need to spend entering shape and texture data, thus letting them spend that time actually simulating product, leading to higher quality products.
Slashdot Mirror
At PayMyBills, you get a new permanent snail-mail address (only for bills), they scan in your bill (PDF) and also enter the relevant info into forms (so lynx _does_ work). All you do is enter the amount you wish to pay and click.
When you first sign up, they give you all the forms your bank will need (via postal mail) to set up the link with PayMyBills. And they let you issue 'electronic checks' without having a bill, too, so you can pay off that loan to your uncle without him needing to send you a bill... Oh, and they send you an e-mail to the address of your choice both when you get a new bill, and when it becomes close to being due.
And they let you try it out for free -- sign up, pay up to 3 bills per month with no charge, then up to 25 (IIRC) is about $9 per month. And all you need to do to become a paying customer is send them more than 3 bills.
I've been using the free account for a bit, and I'm pleased. Yah, it's a comercial outfit, but they do have a great privacy statement, and their contract terms are fair to both sides. And since my bank doesn't have online banking... *braces for laughter* well, it works great for me.
Posted by the Proteus
here I have the biggest issue with content regulation is that the Australian government has decided to implement the content regulation on a nation wide level irrespective of who is trying to look at the content.
To me, this is synonomous to saying that since drivers aged between 18 and 25 cause the most accidents on the road, we should ban all drivers.
The brush is simply too broad and everyone is being tarred.
In my mind, this is the issue with content regulation - the fact that it is applied on a macro and not a micro level.
[[/quote]]
I agree with your basic premise -- that requiring all the people to conform to a law because a few are at risk is foolish.
There are, however, additional issues to consider here. Firstly, current filtering/rating software is grossly ineffective, cutting off sites with such topics as Bible discussion, the Quran (sp?), and Human Anatomy. This is a travesty because it forces such sites to "rate or be excluded."
Secondly, and perhaps more to the point, is that any Government -- especially one which claims to be 'free' -- does not have the right to censor information. (note: yes, there are some exceptions for classified data, but even this should be released when no longer sensitive) Should parents be concerned about what their children view on the Net? Absolutely? Should they install filtering software if they can't be with their kids all the time? Perhaps, I leave it to the parent. But that's the very point -- the responsiblity, and more importantly the choice, rests on the parent. By enforcing such a filtering law, the government is, in effect, saying that their citizens are so foolish that they cannot decide for themselves or their children what is "appropriate."
Is there content available on the net that I wish wasn't there? You bet. Do I try to stop it? Hell no. Freedom of speech is a basic freedom -- and to take it away from even one person or group is to hinder us all.
Just my $0.02
remove SPAMKILLER- to contact me.
Posted by the Proteus
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler "One People, one Government, one Ruler" - Adolf Hitler (translated)
Thought the German-impaired might like to know that... :)
Posted by the Proteus
After that, in 4.x, you can also use "?query" in your location bar (where query is your search term) to search the Netscape/Google engine.
Posted by the Proteus
Legally, perhaps, but not in the intent of the 4th. What a lot of judges, and now seemingly a lot of the populace, seem to forget is that a law's intent is extremely relevant.
In conventional searches, a warrant is issued based on 'reasonable cause' of illegal activity. There must be enough circumstantial evidence, in the opinion of a judge, for the target to be a suspect in a crime. The problem with allowing keyboard sniffing and other Key-recovery methods is that many people -- including judges -- view the mere use of encryption to be suspicious activity. This means that warrants "just to see" will be easier to come by.
Also, using a sealed warrant to provide an electronic means of reading all your data is much more dangerous to us all because the average user -- even the above average user -- would not know when or if their information was being scanned. The 4th Ammendment was meant to provide protection for citizens from authorities doing random searches. The way this is proposed provides a very large, very easy to use loophole for the authorities.
While I certianly have no illegal activity to hide, consider this -- how many in the /. community have ever 'hacked' someone's box? However innocently? I know several people who have managed to break into websites and make minor changes, then notify the admin how to fix it. This, to us, is honorable and there is nothing wrong with it. But to a lot of people, it is crime. So what if you have some security protocol info on your PC? And you, of course, have it encrypted? Whoops. you're under suspicion.
This is certainly a _legal_ exercise -- but it still bothers me.
01 - just my 2 bits. IANAL, but I play one at work. :P
Posted by the Proteus
The ACLU helps defend matters relating to civil rights.
This, IMHO, is indeed a violation of basic rights, not the least of which is freedom of speech. This bill allows organizations to, among other things, dictate and enforce regulations regarding "proper use" of their software. That means that Microsoft (for example) could say "you are not allowed to use Word to disparage Microsoft" and shut down your license if you do. Given the fact that most people don't read their EULA's, items of this nature can and will appear.
Another effective tack would be to vote with your money. Educate your employer about the dangers of using UCITA-protected software and suggest free or non-UCITA alternatives. It sounds to me from the nature of this bill that would merely allow EULA's to contain clauses allowing things such as remote shutdown -- if product EULA's don't include this clause, then UCITA is ineffective. Simply put, if it's UCITA, don't buy it.
Also, take the time to let vendors know that you will not purchase any software from them if it is protected under UCITA.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (IANAL), nor a lawmaker -- my interpretations are subject to error. Further, I am human... :P
Posted by the Proteus
This might be true: I cannot prove otherwise. However, think about these things:
- Janet Reno has nothing to do with foreign policy... why would she write this letter directly to a foreign power? Would it not make more sense to write a letter to some US diplomat who is involved in foreign affairs?
- There is no way to verify that this letter is authentic (meaning from Janet Reno), or that it ever existed.
- This type of situation is screaming "hoax" -- it's the perfect topic for a practical joke: something that is close to the hearts of the tech community and has been heatedly battled over many times before.
As with anything that is unsubstantiated, take it with a grain (or perhaps a cup) of salt. A wise person once said "believe half of what you hear, and only 10% of what you read." That is, without proof...Posted by the Proteus
you mention that people use an app because, among other reasons, it's what they are given at work. Now, imagine a company that, like most of my customers, uses Macs, Unix, and Windows. Now look at StarOffice being the same interface, writing the same file formats, etc. on all those platforms. "Nice," says the IT Manager. Now add the fact that StarOffice can import and export MS formats, and viola! An IT Manager's dream: an office suite that's reasonably priced, multi-platform, and MS-interoperable.
And, if you want to migrate a Win user to, say, Linux... you don't have to have them re-learn the office suite. Users like that!
Me, I'd bet on great sales increases on the corporate end...
Then again, I could be completely wrong... these things happen :P
Posted by the Proteus
I hope you're right and Linux is the next Java -- Java has now lost 98.6% of it's hype (yes, I pulled that % out of my butt), however, it is an increasingly relevant technology. I have seen many, many of our customers in the past few months move to thin-client solutions for managing entire manufacturing lines: and all are Java-based.
If, two years from now, there is no hype and Linux is just accepted as a viable business solution, I will be ecstatic!
Posted by the Proteus
Keep in mind, there are so many distros of Linux that there is more Linux news to be reported than other OS news.
Also, all stories are posted from user-submitted stories -- you want to see a story on a non-Linux OS? If it's relevant news, submit it, and if it is indeed relevant, it will probably be posted!
Posted by the Proteus
First of all, RedHat has donated resources to projects that help the community. At some level, they do have concern for the progression of the community.
Secondly, the Open Source or Free Software or whatever movement you happen to support is based as much on competition as on cooperation. How many Web servers are there for linux? I can think of at least three. Why? They each offer something different. Yet they compete. Lack of competition can cause lower quality products -- why add new features or fix bugs when you're the only choice?
Also, consider this -- why is Microsoft so universally disliked among the Linux/*BSD community? Precicely because there is no competition! That has lead to buggy, unstable, bloated code. Competition, and the freedom to compete, is the very basis of the Free Software and Open Source movements. (and other orgs like them)
RedHat is a business. Sometimes they will do things that benefit themselves more than the community as a whole. But the publicity and corporate acceptance of Linux that RedHat is responsible for has been, and continues to be, of immeasurable benefit to the cause.
Just because RedHat makes smart business decisions that don't always jive with the idyllic objectives of the community does not make them evil or 'The Microsoft of Linux'. Last time I checked, RedHat was far from monopoly status.
(Personally, I use Debian because I find RedHat overly bloated for my taste -- I mention it so that no one thinks I am some kind of religious RedHat supporter. But neither am I a RedHat hater.)
Posted by the Proteus
That really did not need to be pointed out, not to mention that it isn't quite accurate (two different connotations is not neccessarily redundant). Basically, while it isn't flamebait, it is a rather useless and picky comment.
I'm sure you've made your share of grammatical errors, so don't correct grammar/spelling unless it is necessary in order to clarify a comment.
Posted by the Proteus
Firstly, keep in mind that most companies thrive less on actual strength than on customer perception. By defining their own OpenSource license, they put their name in the headlines: at least for us in the OSI/FreeSoftware community. (side point: how do you classify those who support both concepts?)
Secondly, I object to stating that IBM stands as an enemy and not a friend because they file many, many software patents. While I do agree that there is a level of hypocrasy in claiming to support the OSI while filing software patents, this doesn't mean they are an enemy. There is great danger in the mentality of "if you are not with us, you are against us." The OSI is young yet, and IBM has no way of knowing if it will last -- what I see in the software patent frenzy is an attempt to create a "safety net" while cautiously supporting OSI. I suspect that as the OSI continues to gain support, IBM will become less paranoid.
Besides, at a company that large, what else do the lawyers have to do? :P Might as well set them up writing an OSD-compatible license than writing proprietary ones, no?
INAL, nor am I expert. Just my $0.02
import disclaimer;
Posted by the Proteus
Remember, it's not a violation until we know it's a violation. There may not even be any GPL'd code involved. As someone else pointed out, the people who claim "BeOS/Linx hybrid" are marketing people. Most of them don't know a phone jack from an ethernet port.
Jumping on this too quickly, and too harshly, could do more harm than good. Even if, when this does come out, a GPL violation is found, remember that it may be accidental -- and respond first with a tactful notice. If the programmers are typical, they will immediately take steps to correct the violation... if not, then legal action might be explored by the community.
Either way, the community as a whole will get a lot farther using dignity and tact than sending off flame. Think about it: how would you respond to a literal flame? Extinguish it... is that what we want? I thought not.
Please, please, read the Advocacy HOWTO.
Posted by the Proteus
You catch more flies with honey than with BS.
Posted by the Proteus
Posted by the Proteus
most irritated to learn that they are censoring things.
Demon is not, they are covering themselves and their users so they don't get prosecuted. The censorship that exists is in the UK's defamation laws. If you want to direct your outrage somewhere, it would be more productive to attack the disease (outdated legislation), than the symptom (Demon's compliance with the outdated legislation.)
Just my 2 bits.
Posted by the Proteus
I do feel I need to rebutt one thing - Java's ability to deploy via the web (or an intranet) is key. Most Java-based applications I see are in Servlet/Applet contexts, not full Applications. Besides, since alternate browsers -- most notably netscape -- will definately support pure Java and not some MS adaptation, the web side will be safe.
Additionally, Java applications are often deployed containing at least one JVM and providing links to alternates. In the online age (god, that sounded cheesy) people will download JVM's that are 100% compatible! It's up to the programmers to force the issue, that's all.
Posted by the Proteus
There are a lot of comments pointing out that MS will have a 100% Java VM for Windows, and that if this occurs, it would force would-be developers to choose.
Not so. There are an assortment of JVM's available, and nearly every commercially-available package I've run across either includes a JVM or provides links to one. If developers say "sorry, you need a 100% Compatible JVM to run our package" - then people will get a 100% Compatible JVM. Especially since many of them are free.
MS does not stand to gain much here.
Posted by the Proteus
I'll go with your "Latte" nomer... Say MS develops Latte as an alternative, E&E'd version of Java -- MS cannot "break" the code for the Java VM portion and still call it "Java Compatible" or the like. Since Sun has control of the Java trademark, MS will be hard-pressed to successfully market Latte.
Also, since Java applets have wider distribution potential then Latte applets would have (what webmaster in their right mind would dileberately exclude non-MS users?), Java will remain strong for web-based programming.
The support for the Java platform will, however, need to come most strongly from the programming community. Only in this way can Java continue to progress in spite of MS E&E.
0 1 - my two bits.
Posted by the Proteus
At this point, I'd say the situation merits some cautious observation. But the point still stands that M$ has not done anything worrisome yet.
Posted by the Proteus
Many, many of the things that M$ has done - past, present, and no doubt future - do constitute takeover tactics... but not this. Ask yourself one simple question: would any company trying to gain a foothold in the Internet marketplace (and who has the money) not do whatever possible to be in on I2?
Very simply put - M$ now has a seat at the I2 table, but it is far from a controlling seat. This one is just a smart business move folks. Why? PR, market positioning, a voice on standards, etc.
For those worried about an M$ takeover of I2: I wouldn't start worrying just yet. M$ is but one voice here.
Ugh. I feel so dirty, defending M$ like that... but the truth must be told :P
Posted by the Proteus
I don't like paying $7 for a movie either, but piracy is a contributing factor to high theater prices anyway - I wonder how this is going to affect us in the long run? Anyone worry about the gov't restricting digital video formats? I sure do now...
Posted by the Proteus
I can see technology like this being applied to reduce the amount of time engineers and others need to spend entering shape and texture data, thus letting them spend that time actually simulating product, leading to higher quality products.
Or am I on crack?
Posted by the Proteus
If you, or anyone else, knows where I can find one for under USD$1000, email me immediately, you will be rewarded well... :P
Posted by the Proteus