Slashdot needs a bit more balance in the way it covers things. If this had been a problem with the goddamn filesystem (!) in Windows you'd be seeing 900 posts to the tone of "Hah! M$ sucks!!!1!!".
Oh baloney.
The fact is that the open source development process is just that, open. This means that users have access to versions of the kernel at all stages of development. This build is only a few days old. Clearly everyone should realize the amount of testing is too small for widespread production use.
This kernel, and bug have NOT made it into any significant distributions of Linux. The only people using this version are bleeding edge types and testers who routinely compile their own kernels from source.
If this was a case of, say RedHat 8.0 showing up with a file corruption bug, then, yes, it should be a front page article. This is nothing of the sort. This is a kernel version that might have shown up in Red Hat 8.1, say six months from now had it passed the test of time.
I shudder to think what kinds of problems we would be reporting here if Microsoft gave its customers anything like the same level of access to its development process.
After all, Microsoft is the company that shipped Windows ME and MS Smartphone.
Just like everything else Microsoft, that sounds good until you really think about it.
In this case there will no doubt be some way to crack this protection - either somebody will get a signing certificate, or find a hole in the implementaion on the phone (gotta be a buffer overflow in there somewhere).
The end result is that the phone will run viruses just fine, but NOT legitimate software.
Looking from here in Europe, US workers appear to be trussed and blinded by the american dream
I used to work for a French company operating in the US. Since I had some skillz, I got to travel to France now and again. It was quite interesting to see the 'greves' that had people taking batteau mouche rides to get to work in Paris when the Metro was having a 'social action'. The French government was also running a campaign to try to cut down on people working overtime because unemployment was over 14%. There were union posters in the workplaces extolling the idea that people had a right to a job, and the goverment should legislate a shorter workweek to get this to happen.
During my time with this country we moved a lot of manufacturing out of Europe to either the US or China because the costs in France were so high (due to unions) and the problems with trying to get something done in August when the entire country of France was in the Alps en vacance, or on two hour lunch breaks, or there was a greve that meant customers couldn't get their product. NO new projects went into Europe because of the cost and employment law issues.
This doesn't seem to me to be the way to a productive society to me. People will get jobs when the cost of their employment is less than what they can produce for a company, not because 'they have a right to a job'. Structural rigdidity is the primary reason that growth in Japan has been zero for a decade now, and growth in Europe is about 1/2 that in the US.
OTOH, I do think that the French system of education has a lot of things to teach America. Not that I advocate adopting it totally though as I'm not much enamored of the idea that the baccelaureatte result determines the rest of your life.
They're talking about squeezing HD-DVD onto the same physical medium, but using MPEG-4 compression rather than the MPEG-2 currently used.
Isn't the max res of MPEG-4 short of what real HDTV requires? From what I understand a lot of people think trying to cram HD-TV onto a DVD-9 is going to lead to a lot of compromises in video quality.
From what I understand the majority of equipment manufacturers are pushing HD DVD as something with a blue led and 25 GB per layer.
Re:of course, we'll have much larger hard drives..
on
5 Predictions for 2012
·
· Score: 2
If the triend continues we'll have half petabyte hard drives by then.
That's a big if. There have been numerous articles claiming we are nearing a thermal limit on recording density.
Every cable and satellite television receiver will include a hard disk for recording shows, and those disks will have a minimum capacity of one terabyte, or 1,000 gigabytes, enough to store hundreds of hours of high-definition programming.
Not bloody likely. HD Video is likely to require about 15 GB/hour to store. 1 TB of data does NOT give you 'hundreds of hours', more like 65 hours.
yes it lacks features, but guess what, who really gives a hoot.
I do. I really dislike having to repeatedly write code to get around the lack of features in MySQL. MySQL developers have often pointed out that there are workarounds for the missing features, however they don't talk about the impact this has on application performance, quality and development time.
I think that's the sort of thing that as soon as that feature is filled in, people will say it's "just" something else that's missing
Maybe, but I have had to disqualify postgresql from consideration becasue of this issue on two projects this year. I really would have preferred to use it, too. I can't say that about any other feature.
I still object to this way of looking at things, but if you take it as a given, there is a simple "algorithm" for coming up with a different "process" that yields the same result:
This is why I think many of these kinds of patents will untimately fail. The only fly in the ointment is the 'doctrine of equivalents' which is in a giant legal muddle right now. Sooner or later I expect some legislation in this area - courts are handing down grossly conflicting rulings on what this means.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/mat te rs-0208.html
I used to be a researcher in the field of synthetic polymers. The patent literature in this area is a real bear - but if you had the right attitude you could make it a tool to aid your work. My boss used to say that the patent literature is a map leading you to new results.
Ultimately I think that this is what the software industry will come to. Programmers will need to understand the patent literature in their area of expertise, just like technical practioners in other fields do now. I think it's very much a sign of the immaturity of the software field that we have this great hue and cry over software patents. The fact of the matter is that finding a new way to calculate an FFT is IMPORTANT and the inventor should be well rewarded.
Business method patents, on the other hand, are just WRONG. They have nothing to do with the advancement of technology that was envisioned by Article 1, section 8.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. ..
Do you want to live in a world where things like the GUI, 3D graphics, wordprocessing, webserving, and other commercial products were never developed?
With the exception of wordprocessing all of the innovations you cite were developed by academic R&D teams, NOT by commercial software vendors.
This one exception, wordprocessing was NOT an innovation arising from the computer revolution - it's roots go back to IBM Selectric Magcard typewriters.
All the commercial vendors have done is copy, copy and copy.
Citations:
GUI - Stanford Research Institute Augmentation Center Wordprocessing - IBM Typewriter Division 3D graphics - Evans and Sutherland, UofUtah and Harvard Webserving - T. Berners Lee, CERN
The fact is that if the closed source behemouths were to dry up and blow away, it would probably enhance innovation by reducing the barriers to entry in the marketplace imposed by the likes of Microsoft.
After all, what VC is going to fund a new wordprocessor these days? VC's know all to well what Microsoft would do to any new market entrant that starts to gain traction. They have the horrible example of Netscape to look back on.
the means of implementing an algorithm (inbreath of the claim. the sense of "implementing" they are using here) is itself an algorithm.
Not really. The 'means' means a physical implementation, i.e. a computer that performs the algorithm. The strength of a patent like this is in in how broad a coverage you can get of the means. Often you can claim the means is a computer, and have enough coverage for practical purposes. This is what a lot of patents, say like the RSA patent have done.
Claiming "means" to apply math to a problem is pure smoke.
In this case I would agree, because of the way the first claim is phrased it seems to cover a very wide range of physical means of implementing the algorithm.
One thing that often confuses the issue of patents coverage of algorithms is the 'process patent'. When you think of a process as an algorithm you can be led to think that the patent is covering a mathematical law. That is not really the case; many algorithms can be derived from the same mathematical law. And in fact a process need not have a mathematical basis at all.
For example, I wonder if a clever mathematician, given the process here could not work out an alternative algorithm that results in the same ending.
This obviously depends on the definition of "ordinary" and "the art"
Since this is law, not programming, definitions of terms are worked out over time. One thing to keep in mind is that in an infringement trail, if you try to assert obviousness to invalidate a patent, the burden of proof is on you.
Interestingly, the long-felt commercial need for an effective spam filter may put the use of Markov algorithms as spam filters into the 'non-obvious' category, and thus patentable.
Here is how it is normally done in an infringement case:
The court MUST determine obviousness based on four factual inquiries:
(1) the differences between the prior art and challenged claims;
(2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the pertinent art at the time of plaintiff's invention;
(3) what one possessing that level of skill would have deemed to be obvious from the prior art reference; and
(4) objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness.
See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996); Hoover Group, Inc. v. Custom Metalcraft, Inc., 66 F.3d 299, 303 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It is important to note, however, that the test endorsed by the United States Supreme Court contained only a three part inquiry, which does NOT mandate that secondary considerations be considered. Rather, the Supreme Court test, which was set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), states that secondary considerations "might" be useful in determining obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 17-18. Nevertheless, the Graham factors as set forth by the Supreme Court are:
(1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 17.
Notwithstanding, today secondary considerations of obviousness MUST be considered by the court before reaching a conclusion on obviousness. These secondary considerations include, but are not limited to:
(1) the commercial success of the invention;
(2) whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need in the industry;
(3) failure of others to find a solution to the problem at hand; and
(4) unexpected results.
B.F. Goodrich, 72 F.3d at 1582; see also Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 U.S.P.Q. 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987).
The whole point of mathematical techniques is that they work no matter what you apply them to--which is why you didn't used to be able to patent mathematics.
Current patent law does forbid patenting natural law, including mathematical principals. The problem is not the lack of that law, but the fact that clever lawyers have been successful in shaving ever closer to effectively getting coverage of an algroithm.
In this patent what we have is the following claim:
1. A Markov model discriminator system comprising:
means for providing an input sequence to be classified;
means coupled to said means for providing an input sequence for performing two different model likelihood calculations based on two different Markov model parameters representing two different classes of examples, each class having a predetermined characteristic on which discrimination between classes is based;
means for comparing said likelihood calculations as to which of said characteristics said input sequence is likely to exhibit based on said comparison, thus to classify said input sequence; and
means for training said means coupled to said input sequence for performing said two calculations by generating said Markov model parameters taking onto account both negative and positive examples of said different classes.
Now notice that nowhere is there an attempt to claim ownership of the actual algorithm, only means of implementing that algorithm.
Another key word here is "comprising". This word is key to understanding what is covered by this invention. In this case it covers any means of implementing the process described that contains all of the steps described. Other steps can be added and the patent would still apply.
This link gives a good overview on how to read a patent claim.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/mat te rs-9511.html
To obtain useful prior art you have to go further back than the 2000 patent issue date. You have to show that the 'prior art' occurs before the date the invention occured, not when the patent issued. Obviously that date is before the FILING date of the patent, which in this case was Dec 1997.
American companies such as Sun, Microsoft, Nortel are helping to limit the freedoms of people around the world, even leading to executions.
What is this, hyporcrite day? The fact is that the Chinese government is supported by every government and citizen that engages in any sort of trade or commerce with it.
Sure, these companies are doing business with China. SO IS ALMOST EVERY LARGE COMPANY AND NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
China is the economic target of every western company and nation looking to expand it's international trade. Investments by foriegn companies into China are rampant. China was just admitted into the WTO.
The fact is that if you are going to bring up the issue of business ethics and dealings with China, the fact is that every western government, large company and most individual consumers have been supporting Chinaand is equally guilty of doing business with a regime that does not respect basic human rights.
The military academies have a very strict code of honor. For a midshipman to be caught with something like pirated music would probably result in summary dismissal from the academy.
Evidence presented by the RIAA that midshipmen were engaging in illegal activites like this would really cause the administration of Annapolis to investigate quite carefully, and be VERY upset if this sort of thing was going on.
I feel sorry for these people - if they are caught with pirated music, their careers at the Naval academy are done.
In order to drive sales of new computers, new applications are required. These new applications require companies that are willing to take a risk and enter the software market - but with Microsoft hanging over the market like a Godzilla waiting to tromp over any newcomer that might threaten Microsoft's cash cows funding for innovative software is going to be very hard to come by.
People don't forget what happened to Netscape - the web browser was the last real killer app, and look what Microsoft did to that.
The fact is that Microsoft is strangling the computer market, and the situation won't change any time soon. AMD realizes this, and is looking to make cpus for markets where Microsoft is not dominant. Markets where innovation and new technologies are possible.
Especially they cannot take new patents on this coz we hold prior art as on today !!
No, I am sure that they have already filed on all the patents they think they can get! You don't think they would have released something without patenting as much of it as possible, do you?
And then what happens when.Net 2.0 comes out, eh? Or for that matter the handwrting/voice/alpha wave recognition expansion pack etc....
Becuase if we hook into.net, all the new.net applications will just WORK IN *NIX.
No way that Microsoft is going to let THAT happen.
MS.Net has a lot more to it in proprietary libraries; stuff that is guarded by patents and DCMA protected protocols that will prevent application portability. MS is already making moves to make things difficult for Wine and Samba with their NDA agreements on SMB specs.
I guess I have some rather severe misgivings about this - how useful is this going to be given the lack of the proprietary MS libraries that you are going to need to run real-world applications, or move code in a portable fashion from one machine to another?
It's nice to have something like a this in the free software regime from a technical perspective, but is it really ever going to be anything but a little sister to the Microsoft version? Won't that reality diminish the corporate view that Linux is really just a hacker's toy, and if you want the real thing get Windows?
Interoperability and portability are good, but interoperability really occurs at the protocol level, and portability requires libraries. I can see this resulting in are misleading market claims from Microsoft saying things like Lookie Here C# code is portable just like Java code !!
One good thing that could come out of this is that it might force Sun to loosen it's grip on Java a bit so that we get more serious open JVM's etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Guns don't kill people, bullet holes do.
Strictly speaking, it's cerebral anoxia that kills people.
Slashdot needs a bit more balance in the way it covers things. If this had been a problem with the goddamn filesystem (!) in Windows you'd be seeing 900 posts to the tone of "Hah! M$ sucks!!!1!!".
Oh baloney.
The fact is that the open source development process is just that, open. This means that users have access to versions of the kernel at all stages of development. This build is only a few days old. Clearly everyone should realize the amount of testing is too small for widespread production use.
This kernel, and bug have NOT made it into any significant distributions of Linux. The only people using this version are bleeding edge types and testers who routinely compile their own kernels from source.
If this was a case of, say RedHat 8.0 showing up with a file corruption bug, then, yes, it should be a front page article. This is nothing of the sort. This is a kernel version that might have shown up in Red Hat 8.1, say six months from now had it passed the test of time.
I shudder to think what kinds of problems we would be reporting here if Microsoft gave its customers anything like the same level of access to its development process.
After all, Microsoft is the company that shipped Windows ME and MS Smartphone.
Score: -1, Pro-Microsoft
If this is your typical posting, yes.
Just like everything else Microsoft, that sounds good until you really think about it.
In this case there will no doubt be some way to crack this protection - either somebody will get a signing certificate, or find a hole in the implementaion on the phone (gotta be a buffer overflow in there somewhere).
The end result is that the phone will run viruses just fine, but NOT legitimate software.
Looking from here in Europe, US workers appear to be trussed and blinded by the american dream
I used to work for a French company operating in the US. Since I had some skillz, I got to travel to France now and again. It was quite interesting to see the 'greves' that had people taking batteau mouche rides to get to work in Paris when the Metro was having a 'social action'. The French government was also running a campaign to try to cut down on people working overtime because unemployment was over 14%. There were union posters in the workplaces extolling the idea that people had a right to a job, and the goverment should legislate a shorter workweek to get this to happen.
During my time with this country we moved a lot of manufacturing out of Europe to either the US or China because the costs in France were so high (due to unions) and the problems with trying to get something done in August when the entire country of France was in the Alps en vacance, or on two hour lunch breaks, or there was a greve that meant customers couldn't get their product. NO new projects went into Europe because of the cost and employment law issues.
This doesn't seem to me to be the way to a productive society to me. People will get jobs when the cost of their employment is less than what they can produce for a company, not because 'they have a right to a job'. Structural rigdidity is the primary reason that growth in Japan has been zero for a decade now, and growth in Europe is about 1/2 that in the US.
OTOH, I do think that the French system of education has a lot of things to teach America. Not that I advocate adopting it totally though as I'm not much enamored of the idea that the baccelaureatte result determines the rest of your life.
They're talking about squeezing HD-DVD onto the same physical medium, but using MPEG-4 compression
rather than the MPEG-2 currently used.
Isn't the max res of MPEG-4 short of what real HDTV requires? From what I understand a lot of people think trying to cram HD-TV onto a DVD-9 is going to lead to a lot of compromises in video quality.
From what I understand the majority of equipment manufacturers are pushing HD DVD as something with a blue led and 25 GB per layer.
If the triend continues we'll have half petabyte hard drives by then.
That's a big if. There have been numerous articles claiming we are nearing a thermal limit on recording density.
Every cable and satellite television receiver will include a hard disk for recording shows, and those disks will have a minimum capacity of one terabyte, or 1,000 gigabytes, enough to store hundreds of hours of high-definition programming.
Not bloody likely. HD Video is likely to require about 15 GB/hour to store. 1 TB of data does NOT give you 'hundreds of hours', more like 65 hours.
yes it lacks features, but guess what, who really gives a hoot.
I do. I really dislike having to repeatedly write code to get around the lack of features in MySQL. MySQL developers have often pointed out that there are workarounds for the missing features, however they don't talk about the impact this has on application performance, quality and development time.
I think that's the sort of thing that as soon as that feature is filled in, people will say it's "just" something else that's missing
Maybe, but I have had to disqualify postgresql from consideration becasue of this issue on two projects this year. I really would have preferred to use it, too. I can't say that about any other feature.
I still object to this way of looking at things, but if you take it as a given, there is a simple "algorithm" for coming up with a different "process" that yields the same result:
t te rs-0208.html
.
This is why I think many of these kinds of patents will untimately fail. The only fly in the ointment is the 'doctrine of equivalents' which is in a giant legal muddle right now. Sooner or later I expect some legislation in this area - courts are handing down grossly conflicting rulings on what this means.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/ma
I used to be a researcher in the field of synthetic polymers. The patent literature in this area is a real bear - but if you had the right attitude you could make it a tool to aid your work. My boss used to say that the patent literature is a map leading you to new results.
Ultimately I think that this is what the software industry will come to. Programmers will need to understand the patent literature in their area of expertise, just like technical practioners in other fields do now. I think it's very much a sign of the immaturity of the software field that we have this great hue and cry over software patents. The fact of the matter is that finding a new way to calculate an FFT is IMPORTANT and the inventor should be well rewarded.
Business method patents, on the other hand, are just WRONG. They have nothing to do with the advancement of technology that was envisioned by Article 1, section 8.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. .
Business process? Poppycock.
Do you want to live in a world where things like the GUI, 3D graphics, wordprocessing, webserving, and other commercial products were never developed?
With the exception of wordprocessing all of the innovations you cite were developed by academic R&D teams, NOT by commercial software vendors.
This one exception, wordprocessing was NOT an innovation arising from the computer revolution - it's roots go back to IBM Selectric Magcard typewriters.
All the commercial vendors have done is copy, copy and copy.
Citations:
GUI - Stanford Research Institute Augmentation Center
Wordprocessing - IBM Typewriter Division
3D graphics - Evans and Sutherland, UofUtah and Harvard
Webserving - T. Berners Lee, CERN
The fact is that if the closed source behemouths were to dry up and blow away, it would probably enhance innovation by reducing the barriers to entry in the marketplace imposed by the likes of Microsoft.
After all, what VC is going to fund a new wordprocessor these days? VC's know all to well what Microsoft would do to any new market entrant that starts to gain traction. They have the horrible example of Netscape to look back on.
the means of implementing an algorithm (inbreath of the claim. the sense of "implementing" they are using here) is itself an algorithm.
Not really. The 'means' means a physical implementation, i.e. a computer that performs the algorithm. The strength of a patent like this is in in how broad a coverage you can get of the means. Often you can claim the means is a computer, and have enough coverage for practical purposes. This is what a lot of patents, say like the RSA patent have done.
Claiming "means" to apply math to a problem is pure smoke.
In this case I would agree, because of the way the first claim is phrased it seems to cover a very wide range of physical means of implementing the algorithm.
One thing that often confuses the issue of patents coverage of algorithms is the 'process patent'. When you think of a process as an algorithm you can be led to think that the patent is covering a mathematical law. That is not really the case; many algorithms can be derived from the same mathematical law. And in fact a process need not have a mathematical basis at all.
For example, I wonder if a clever mathematician, given the process here could not work out an alternative algorithm that results in the same ending.
http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/cbradio.ht m
Done. Now we can close this topic.
This obviously depends on the definition of "ordinary" and "the art"
Since this is law, not programming, definitions of terms are worked out over time. One thing to keep in mind is that in an infringement trail, if you try to assert obviousness to invalidate a patent, the burden of proof is on you.
Interestingly, the long-felt commercial need for an effective spam filter may put the use of Markov algorithms as spam filters into the 'non-obvious' category, and thus patentable.
Here is how it is normally done in an infringement case:
The court MUST determine obviousness based on four factual inquiries:
(1) the differences between the prior art and challenged claims;
(2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the pertinent art at the time of plaintiff's invention;
(3) what one possessing that level of skill would have deemed to be obvious from the prior art reference; and
(4) objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness.
See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996); Hoover Group, Inc. v. Custom Metalcraft, Inc., 66 F.3d 299, 303 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It is important to note, however, that the test endorsed by the United States Supreme Court contained only a three part inquiry, which does NOT mandate that secondary considerations be considered. Rather, the Supreme Court test, which was set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), states that secondary considerations "might" be useful in determining obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 17-18. Nevertheless, the Graham factors as set forth by the Supreme Court are:
(1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 17.
Notwithstanding, today secondary considerations of obviousness MUST be considered by the court before reaching a conclusion on obviousness. These secondary considerations include, but are not limited to:
(1) the commercial success of the invention;
(2) whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need in the industry;
(3) failure of others to find a solution to the problem at hand; and
(4) unexpected results.
B.F. Goodrich, 72 F.3d at 1582; see also Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 U.S.P.Q. 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987).
The whole point of mathematical techniques is that they work no matter what you apply them to--which is why you didn't used to be able to patent mathematics.
t te rs-9511.html
Current patent law does forbid patenting natural law, including mathematical principals. The problem is not the lack of that law, but the fact that clever lawyers have been successful in shaving ever closer to effectively getting coverage of an algroithm.
In this patent what we have is the following claim:
1. A Markov model discriminator system comprising:
means for providing an input sequence to be classified;
means coupled to said means for providing an input sequence for performing two different model likelihood calculations based on two different Markov model parameters representing two different classes of examples, each class having a predetermined characteristic on which discrimination between classes is based;
means for comparing said likelihood calculations as to which of said characteristics said input sequence is likely to exhibit based on said comparison, thus to classify said input sequence; and
means for training said means coupled to said input sequence for performing said two calculations by generating said Markov model parameters taking onto account both negative and positive examples of said different classes.
Now notice that nowhere is there an attempt to claim ownership of the actual algorithm, only means of implementing that algorithm.
Another key word here is "comprising". This word is key to understanding what is covered by this invention. In this case it covers any means of implementing the process described that contains all of the steps described. Other steps can be added and the patent would still apply.
This link gives a good overview on how to read a patent claim.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/ma
To obtain useful prior art you have to go further back than the 2000 patent issue date. You have to show that the 'prior art' occurs before the date the invention occured, not when the patent issued. Obviously that date is before the FILING date of the patent, which in this case was Dec 1997.
Then again, I also thought it was 'obvious'
The full term in patent law is 'obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art'.
In other words, it has to be REALLY obvious.
It would seem to me that sticking out the transition to .Net and working on Linux on the side would be the best way to make the transition.
.Net, your VB skills are soon going to be hard to market, and you don't have any real Linux skills just yet.
With
If you stick it out, you will have a much better skillset to show the market.
American companies such as Sun, Microsoft, Nortel are helping to limit the freedoms of people around the world, even leading to executions.
What is this, hyporcrite day? The fact is that the Chinese government is supported by every government and citizen that engages in any sort of trade or commerce with it.
Sure, these companies are doing business with China. SO IS ALMOST EVERY LARGE COMPANY AND NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
China is the economic target of every western company and nation looking to expand it's international trade. Investments by foriegn companies into China are rampant. China was just admitted into the WTO.
The fact is that if you are going to bring up the issue of business ethics and dealings with China, the fact is that every western government, large company and most individual consumers have been supporting Chinaand is equally guilty of doing business with a regime that does not respect basic human rights.
The military academies have a very strict code of honor. For a midshipman to be caught with something like pirated music would probably result in summary dismissal from the academy.
Evidence presented by the RIAA that midshipmen were engaging in illegal activites like this would really cause the administration of Annapolis to investigate quite carefully, and be VERY upset if this sort of thing was going on.
I feel sorry for these people - if they are caught with pirated music, their careers at the Naval academy are done.
In order to drive sales of new computers, new applications are required. These new applications require companies that are willing to take a risk and enter the software market - but with Microsoft hanging over the market like a Godzilla waiting to tromp over any newcomer that might threaten Microsoft's cash cows funding for innovative software is going to be very hard to come by.
People don't forget what happened to Netscape - the web browser was the last real killer app, and look what Microsoft did to that.
The fact is that Microsoft is strangling the computer market, and the situation won't change any time soon. AMD realizes this, and is looking to make cpus for markets where Microsoft is not dominant. Markets where innovation and new technologies are possible.
Especially they cannot take new patents on this
coz we hold prior art as on today !!
No, I am sure that they have already filed on all the patents they think they can get! You don't think they would have released something without patenting as much of it as possible, do you?
And then what happens when
As for the libraries though, if the API is published it should always be possible to create a workalike library.
What if that functionality is patented or protected by the DCMA or involves some sort of DRM with keys supplied from a Microsoft server?
Becuase if we hook into
No way that Microsoft is going to let THAT happen.
MS
I guess I have some rather severe misgivings about this - how useful is this going to be given the lack of the proprietary MS libraries that you are going to need to run real-world applications, or move code in a portable fashion from one machine to another?
It's nice to have something like a this in the free software regime from a technical perspective, but is it really ever going to be anything but a little sister to the Microsoft version? Won't that reality diminish the corporate view that Linux is really just a hacker's toy, and if you want the real thing get Windows?
Interoperability and portability are good, but interoperability really occurs at the protocol level, and portability requires libraries.
I can see this resulting in are misleading market claims from Microsoft saying things like Lookie Here C# code is portable just like Java code !!
One good thing that could come out of this is that it might force Sun to loosen it's grip on Java a bit so that we get more serious open JVM's etc.