If we can't get out of the situation where MS controls the desktop, there will be a lot fewer chances of doing interesting open source work.
We are already at a situation where, what a good desktop look like is more or less defined by windows. If you build something that look too different from the MS norm, you get bad press. Jounalists that know little of usability will tell end users, that have even less knowledge, its bad and people will not use it. It matters little if your solution actually is better from usability point of view than corresponding windows system, people will not be familliar with it. And it won't be used.
So beating, at least the MS competition really is necessary, if we want freedom to innovate and take the art of user interfaces to the limit.
We need to get back to a state where users judge systems from real usability critera and not only by how much windows likeness a program/system is showing.
I'm not saying there is something wrong with certain types of O.S. projects. I'm saying that there might be strategies that are more fruitful than others to get ourselves in a position where we have as much freedom in our creations as possible.
This is not the time.
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The screenshots are great, the technology is cool, but the one thing that prevents the free desktop to come true on the machine of Average Joe is the lack of applications.
Changeing the direction of the graphics environment right now isn't productive. It will delay the common use of Linux/FreeBSD on the desktop. As applications will need to be ported to the new system, instead of using that developer effort to produce new and better applications. Perhaps even that killer app that makes the difference.
One other thing, one of the the most attractive features in the X11 desktop to corporate user is the remote display facilities. This is a major advantage over windows. It makes system administration a lot cheaper as application can be installed in one place. The admin cost is much more important to this group than the cost of hardware. Even if they needed twice as fast/memoryrich hardware to get the same performance on X11 they would prefer X11.
Once free software have higher market penetration on the Desktop we can change to better technology. But first we need to kill the competition from MS and Apple. X11 is good enough to do that, especially since the average desktop PC gets more and more memory and processing power.
The technology could still prove interesting for emedded devices where memory and processing power constraints still are more common.
It's an old Fortran joke. It's bin around for at least 20 years. I think I heard it the first in the late 1970:s. Sorry I can't remember who was supposed to have said or written it first.
By the way, "Magic" is always integer in Fortran as all variables starting with I,J,K;L,M or N is integer unless declared otherwise. Variables starting with other letters (e.g G as in God) is REAL by default.
Well, perhaps they could distribute a mini version of Linux containing the 80 lines or so of code that may belong to them. Of course they could not call it Linux as that tradmark is already taken.
It seams that they have stopped distributing the kernel. At least I could not find it on their ftp site. However it was there just a couple of days ago.
Not quite true. If YOU wrote the code you can license it to other people in any way you want.
This means that you can stop distributing your programs under GPL and start releasing them under some other license.
The problem is that people who have licenced your code can still make new derivative work from your code and release it, as you granted them that right when you originally issued the license to them.
Nothing wrong with the concept. The only problem is that there are no applications that make use of pen input in a good way Not on windows, and not on Linux.
Besides all existing tablet-PCs are fare too heavy.
If you work with them on the run as you are supposed to, it will almost certainly result work related injuries to neck and sholders. The weight must get down to below at least 500g.
And if you work with them on a table like an ordinarey laptop. There is little need for pen input.
It doesn't run on windows
on
Opengroupware
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is great. We really need this type of software in the open source world. Unfortunately it doesn't run on windows. That meeans that it will be harder to get it to be used in windows infested work places.
Getting open sourced applications to run well on the windows platform is probably the best way of fighting the Microsoft monopoly. It's much easier to convince management to replace propriatory software if can be done radually and in a less high profile fashion.
And when enough open source software have invaded Microsft space, there will be no reason to run windows as your OS. At that time there will be little resistance in replaceing windows with Linux or FreeBSD.
Tech guy 1: One that we are sure doesn't contain BSD code. As SCO have hinted that even systems using BSD code may be at risk.
Boss: What versions doesn't have BSD code in them?
Tech guy 1: We don't know. Only MS knows that for sure. But at least the IP stack in windows is believed to be of BSD origin. To be be reasonalbe sure of avoiding lawsuits we should use Solaris as Sun Microsytems had a much better deal with AT&T than all other Unix venders.
It doesn't really matter if it is the same price. The cost of software licensing is very low compared to maintainance costs during the lifetime of a computerbased information system.
Linux is attractive in corporate settings because of its network centric design, that makes it simple to set up cost saving things like thin client solutions.
Another factor could be that most Linux software uses open file formats that prevents vender lock in, and costs and risks associated with that.
Yet another important thing is that it is a tested preinstalled Linux configuration. That way the PHB will feel confident that the hardware and the Linux software actually works together.
You will also save money as he doesn't need to remove a preinstalled windows system and install Linux instead. The cost of doing that could easily be more higher than the licensing cost of windows.
But of course it would be nice if no money went into the pockets of MS. Let's hope that it is that way. E.g they could spend the money they save by not using MS-Software on Linux development.
Re:Open source support is unbundled and competitiv
on
Linux Usage in the UK
·
· Score: 1
You are probably right, it will take a while before Microsoft goes out of business even it they don't make one sound business decision ever again.. The greatest risk would be if they get caught in some kind of illegal activity like Enron did. But even that would be unlikely, as they can afford to get the best judge money can buy.
But what do you do if MS decicedes to end the life of the product you are using? They will probably offer you some upgrade path, but that could involve large costs to your business as you may need to spend money to retrain your staff, or replace your hardware.
It could also mean that you will have to upgrade software from other vendors. Not all of them sit on a big pile of money. What if they are not around anymore, or even worse you may have in house developed software that could be extremly costly to replace if MS forces you to change your OS.
Not having access to the source code, introduces an element of uncertainty and limits the control of your business, its not paranoia to realize that. A better word for it would be put your head in the sand. Most companies try to have multiple sources for mission critical supplies, why should this not apply to software.
There is Starbasic. That very similar to VB but as the document model is different in Star/OpenOffice than in MS-Office macros written for one environment can't directly be transferred to the other without porting.
One other problem with the current version of Star/OpenOffice is tha lack of a macro recorder. This will be fixed in the next version though. It's allready fully functional in the beta versions of Star/OpenOffice.
Apart from built in macro features, there is also a SDK available for Star/OO that enables you to write extensions in languages like java and C/C++
Now, all intellegence organisations round the world will be occupied by spying on the US to find out how this blue screen of death weapon really works.
Preliminary tests in Germany have already indicated that penguins totally resists the effects of this weapon.
I think the problem is more general than that. The understanding of licenses usually seams to be limited regardless of what rights and obligations they might give the licensee. People copy Microsoft software even though their EULA explicitly tells you not to. So how can we expect them to follow the rules of GPL. It's sad really, as it makes it very hard to be in the software business regardless if you sell your software for money or for code.
"1) Apple's followers are nothing less than fanatical; you will pry their Macs from their cold dead fingers."
They might not want to be caught dead with their hands on a PC running windows, but Unix/Linux is something quite different. That's what movies are made with. And the new MacOS-X is unix as well so it could be a quite simple switch.
"2) Apple has seen the light. The costs of embracing Unix underpinnings and âoeMostlyOpenSource,â are going to seriously pay off. Soon, there will be nothing cool that comes out for the Linux Desktop that doesn't soon run on the Mac."
That's true, especially now when Trolltech plans a GPLed non X11 QT-port for Apple. But having the same software running on both MacOS and Linux isn't going to help Apple. It just simplyfies the switch to less expensive hardware. Just look how Openoffice makes it possible for many users to switch from Windows to Linux, the same thing will happen to Apple.
Even if many Mac users are insensitive to the price of their platform as they may have chosen it for its superior design, and not the price. But Linux too possesses such higher values. I'm thinking of freedom. Apple have already given their users a small taste of that in Darwin. The risk is that they want to experience that freedom to the full extent.
The message would be stay away from GPL if you can't read or understand it. But to avoid using sofware with licenses you don't understand would probably be a good idea regardless what you license your may have.
You have to realize that most software development is not done by software companies building schrink wrapped software to be sold in computer stores, but rather by in-house development. And to that type of development there is no problem with GPL. You can even keep your code secret as long as you do not release binaries to the public.
The only people that are hurt by GPL are people trying to steal other peoples work without paying for it (by giving away your own code). But the propriatory software strategy will lose to GPL in the long run, so they could just as well switch to a service based business model, and GPL their code. That way they would be better prepared for times to come.
Why will GPL win? The purchase value of a GPLed application could be calculated as the cost of the development time spent on that application. But if you base your project on some existing code you don't pay any mony for it. And when you are finiched the value of the product have increased. (And you make money supporting your customers).
The next developer sess the increased value, and is even more tempted to base his new ideas upon what you and your predecessers in development have done. I.e. the more developers that add code to the application the more valuable it gets.
As the value ofthe application grows chance are that the value of a single developers contribution is small compared to the total value. So they will contribute at least as long as it doesn't interfear with business models or trade secrets.
In the end we will have software that fit most needs but the most specialized. And that will be the market of propriatary sofware companies. But this market will be much smaller than the propriatory software market of today. As the market is smaller the development costs will be shared by less people, the prices of propriatory sofware will rise. As they do, even larger investments in free software all of a sudden becomes profitable to the user. All leading to a downgoing spiral for propriatory software.
So you are right if you have a propriatory software company you have all reason in the world to hate GPL. But your chois is rather to use it and adopt a service oriented business model and sail on the GPL tide or be swept away by it.
Well, QT or no QT, KDE developers seam determined to add the Apple fixes back to KHTML. If you look at the CVS digest for Konqueror lately there have bin several speed improvements, so they might already have started. If the KDE folks think it's possible to make use of the Apple changes, then they can't be all that Apple specific. But perhaps the KDE team have more skilled programmers than MS, you never know.
This is very interesting since many web desingers still prefer mac.
If IE is history on mac we can expect them to make web pages that works in safari.
Now, remember that safari is based on khtml, perhaps we can get a larger percentage of websites that can be read in other browsers than IE.
This could be a very good thing.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
I disagree, I think the change is rather slow. You just have to broaden your horizon to see it. E.g. when MS started to talk about.Net as soon as the details slipped out it was very easy to see how it would behave even if you never used it. E.g. you would know that that a human readable XML-based networkd protocol would slow down distributed services, and that you could expect a lot of good development tools as it is easy to program XML stuff.
And when MS released their first demos, they all run on a single host, and the new Visual Studio looked great. No surprise at all.
The same goes for client server computing, even databases havent changed much at least not in the last 20 years. They are faster but other than that mot much have happened. They still use AVL trees for their inner workings, and old Boyce Codd ideas for normalization. And we still have no clue on how object databases really work.
Even object orientation goes far back.
What have changed over time is the programminglanguage of fashion, and to some extend what types of technologies that are combined together.
But all of them perform sequences, loop, and control statements. So, if you still are a coder after 30 years+ in the business, you may be in trouble.
But most of us with that long experience is more likely into decision making regarding coding, than actually doing the coding ourselves, and here our experince is very valuable and wanted.
As far as I know, the winXP software isn't fully internationalized yet, so the difference in user experience and usefulness may not be that much if your native language isn't english.
But in Linux you have the source and can improve on the situation. In the MS case, the only thing you can do is wait and hope.
Slashdot Mirror
If we can't get out of the situation where MS controls the desktop, there will be a lot fewer chances of doing interesting open source work.
We are already at a situation where, what a good desktop look like is more or less defined by windows. If you build something that look too different from the MS norm, you get bad press.
Jounalists that know little of usability will tell end users, that have even less knowledge, its bad and people will not use it. It matters little if your solution actually is better from usability point of view than corresponding windows system, people will not be familliar with it. And it won't be used.
So beating, at least the MS competition really is necessary, if we want freedom to innovate and take the art of user interfaces to the limit.
We need to get back to a state where users judge systems from real usability critera and not only by how much windows likeness a program/system is showing.
I'm not saying there is something wrong with certain types of O.S. projects. I'm saying that there might be strategies that are more fruitful than others to get ourselves in a position where we have as much freedom in our creations as possible.
The screenshots are great, the technology is cool, but the one thing that prevents the free desktop to come true on the machine of Average Joe is the lack of applications.
Changeing the direction of the graphics environment right now isn't productive. It will delay the common use of Linux/FreeBSD on the desktop. As applications will need to be ported to the new system, instead of using that developer effort to produce new and better applications.
Perhaps even that killer app that makes the difference.
One other thing, one of the the most attractive features in the X11 desktop to corporate user is the remote display facilities. This is a major advantage over windows. It makes system administration a lot cheaper as application can be installed in one place. The admin cost is much more important to this group than the cost of hardware. Even if they needed twice as fast/memoryrich hardware to get the same performance on X11 they would prefer X11.
Once free software have higher market penetration on the Desktop we can change to better technology. But first we need to kill the competition from MS and Apple. X11 is good enough to do that, especially since the average desktop PC gets more and more memory and processing power.
The technology could still prove interesting for emedded devices where memory and processing power constraints still are more common.
It's an old Fortran joke. It's bin around for at least 20 years. I think I heard it the first in the late 1970:s. Sorry I can't remember who was supposed to have said or written it first.
By the way, "Magic" is always integer in Fortran as all variables starting with I,J,K;L,M or N is integer unless declared otherwise. Variables starting with other letters (e.g G as in God) is REAL by default.
Well, perhaps they could distribute a mini version of Linux containing the 80 lines or so of code that may belong to them. Of course they could not call it Linux as that tradmark is already taken.
It seams that they have stopped distributing the kernel. At least I could not find it on their ftp site. However it was there just a couple of days ago.
Some older apps doesn't work well on terminal server.
Come alone, use small bills, don't contact FSF
Drop the mony in the brown paper bag you find
behind the big oak in the east side of the park.
Not quite true. If YOU wrote the code you can license it to other people in any way you want.
This means that you can stop distributing your programs under GPL and start releasing them under some other license.
The problem is that people who have licenced your code can still make new derivative work from your code and release it, as you granted them that right when you originally issued the license to them.
Nothing wrong with the concept.
The only problem is that there are no applications that make use of pen input in a good way Not on windows, and not on Linux.
Besides all existing tablet-PCs are fare too heavy.
If you work with them on the run as you are supposed to, it will almost certainly result work related injuries to neck and sholders. The weight must get down to below at least 500g.
And if you work with them on a table like an ordinarey laptop. There is little need for pen input.
So why not just change keyboard mapping?
This is great. We really need this type of software in the open source world. Unfortunately it doesn't run on windows. That meeans that it will be harder to get it to be used in windows infested work places.
Getting open sourced applications to run well on the windows platform is probably the best way of fighting the Microsoft monopoly. It's much easier to convince management to replace propriatory software if can be done radually and in a less high profile fashion.
And when enough open source software have invaded Microsft space, there will be no reason to run windows as your OS. At that time there will be little resistance in replaceing windows with Linux or FreeBSD.
Boss: Which version of Windows should we get?
Tech guy 1:
One that we are sure doesn't contain BSD code.
As SCO have hinted that even systems using BSD code may be at risk.
Boss:
What versions doesn't have BSD code in them?
Tech guy 1:
We don't know. Only MS knows that for sure. But at least the IP stack in windows is believed to be of BSD origin. To be be reasonalbe sure of avoiding lawsuits we should use Solaris as Sun Microsytems had a much better deal with AT&T than all other Unix venders.
It doesn't really matter if it is the same price. The cost of software licensing is very low compared to maintainance costs during the lifetime of a computerbased information system.
Linux is attractive in corporate settings because of its network centric design, that makes it simple to set up cost saving things like thin client solutions.
Another factor could be that most Linux software uses open file formats that prevents vender lock in, and costs and risks associated with that.
Yet another important thing is that it is a tested preinstalled Linux configuration. That way the PHB will feel confident that the hardware and the Linux software actually works together.
You will also save money as he doesn't need to remove a preinstalled windows system and install Linux instead. The cost of doing that could easily be more higher than the licensing cost of windows.
But of course it would be nice if no money went into the pockets of MS. Let's hope that it is that way. E.g they could spend the money they save by not using MS-Software on Linux development.
You are probably right, it will take a while before Microsoft goes out of business even it they don't make one sound business decision ever again..
The greatest risk would be if they get caught in some kind of illegal activity like Enron did. But even that would be unlikely, as they can afford to get the best judge money can buy.
But what do you do if MS decicedes to end the life of the product you are using? They will probably offer you some upgrade path, but that could involve large costs to your business as you may need to spend money to retrain your staff, or replace your hardware.
It could also mean that you will have to upgrade software from other vendors. Not all of them sit on a big pile of money. What if they are not around anymore, or even worse you may have in house developed software that could be extremly costly to replace if MS forces you to change your OS.
Not having access to the source code, introduces an element of uncertainty and limits the control of your business, its not paranoia to realize that.
A better word for it would be put your head in the sand. Most companies try to have multiple sources for mission critical supplies, why should this not apply to software.
There is Starbasic. That very similar to VB but as the document model is different in Star/OpenOffice than in MS-Office macros written for one environment can't directly be transferred to the other without porting.
One other problem with the current version of Star/OpenOffice is tha lack of a macro recorder. This will be fixed in the next version though.
It's allready fully functional in the beta versions
of Star/OpenOffice.
Apart from built in macro features, there is also a SDK available for Star/OO that enables you to write extensions in languages like java and C/C++
Now, all intellegence organisations round the world will be occupied by spying on the US to find out how this blue screen of death weapon really works.
Preliminary tests in Germany have already indicated that penguins totally resists the effects of this weapon.
I think the problem is more general than that.
The understanding of licenses usually seams to be limited regardless of what rights and obligations they might give the licensee. People copy Microsoft software even though their EULA explicitly tells you not to. So how can we expect them to follow the rules of GPL. It's sad really, as it makes it very hard to be in the software business regardless if you sell your software for money or for code.
"1) Apple's followers are nothing less than fanatical; you will pry their Macs from their cold dead fingers."
They might not want to be caught dead with their hands on a PC running windows, but Unix/Linux is something quite different. That's what movies are made with. And the new MacOS-X is unix as well so it could be a quite simple switch.
"2) Apple has seen the light. The costs of embracing Unix underpinnings and âoeMostlyOpenSource,â are going to seriously pay off. Soon, there will be nothing cool that comes out for the Linux Desktop that doesn't soon run on the Mac."
That's true, especially now when Trolltech plans a GPLed non X11 QT-port for Apple. But having the same software running on both MacOS and Linux isn't going to help Apple. It just simplyfies the switch to less expensive hardware. Just look how Openoffice makes it possible for many users to switch from Windows to Linux, the same thing will happen to Apple.
Even if many Mac users are insensitive to the price of their platform as they may have chosen it for its superior design, and not the price. But Linux too possesses such higher values. I'm thinking of freedom. Apple have already given their users a small taste of that in Darwin. The risk is that they want to experience that freedom to the full extent.
Yes, I remember FUN. That was something we had before all these SCO stories turned up.
The message would be stay away from GPL if you can't read or understand it. But to avoid using sofware with licenses you don't understand would probably be a good idea regardless what you license your may have.
You have to realize that most software development is not done by software companies building schrink wrapped software to be sold in computer stores, but rather by in-house development. And to that type of development there is no problem with GPL. You can even keep your code secret as long as you do not release binaries to the public.
The only people that are hurt by GPL are people trying to steal other peoples work without paying for it (by giving away your own code). But the propriatory software strategy will lose to GPL in the long run, so they could just as well switch to a service based business model, and GPL their code. That way they would be better prepared for times to come.
Why will GPL win?
The purchase value of a GPLed application could be calculated as the cost of the development time spent on that application. But if you base your project on some existing code you don't pay any mony for it. And when you are finiched the value of the product have increased. (And you make money supporting your customers).
The next developer sess the increased value, and is even more tempted to base his new ideas upon what you and your predecessers in development have done. I.e. the more developers that add code to the application the more valuable it gets.
As the value ofthe application grows chance are that the value of a single developers contribution is small compared to the total value. So they will contribute at least as long as it doesn't interfear with business models or trade secrets.
In the end we will have software that fit most needs but the most specialized. And that will be the market of propriatary sofware companies. But this market will be much smaller than the propriatory software market of today. As the market is smaller the development costs will be shared by less people, the prices of propriatory sofware will rise. As they do, even larger investments in free software all of a sudden becomes profitable to the user. All leading to a downgoing spiral for propriatory software.
So you are right if you have a propriatory software company you have all reason in the world to hate GPL. But your chois is rather to use it and adopt a service oriented business model and sail on the GPL tide or be swept away by it.
Well, QT or no QT, KDE developers seam determined to add the Apple fixes back to KHTML. If you look at the CVS digest for Konqueror lately there have bin several speed improvements, so they might already have started. If the KDE folks think it's possible to make use of the Apple changes, then they can't be all that Apple specific. But perhaps the KDE team have more skilled programmers than MS, you never know.
And besides, I was under the impression that Safari was built on top of Trolltech QT, to which both MS and Appel have equal access.
Many of the modifications and speed enhancements Apple has made to the khtml rendering engine is supposed to be quite portable to konqueror in KDE.
This is very interesting since many web desingers still prefer mac.
If IE is history on mac we can expect them to make web pages that works in safari.
Now, remember that safari is based on khtml, perhaps we can get a larger percentage of websites that can be read in other browsers than IE.
This could be a very good thing.
I disagree, I think the change is rather slow. You just have to broaden your horizon to see it. E.g. when MS started to talk about .Net as soon as the details slipped out it was very easy to see how it would behave even if you never used it. E.g. you would know that that a human readable XML-based networkd protocol would slow down distributed services, and that you could expect a lot of good development tools as it is easy to program XML stuff.
And when MS released their first demos, they all run on a single host, and the new Visual Studio looked great. No surprise at all.
The same goes for client server computing, even databases havent changed much at least not in the last 20 years. They are faster but other than that mot much have happened. They still use AVL trees for their inner workings, and old Boyce Codd ideas for normalization. And we still have no clue on how object databases really work.
Even object orientation goes far back.
What have changed over time is the programminglanguage of fashion, and to some extend what types of technologies that are combined together.
But all of them perform sequences, loop, and control statements.
So, if you still are a coder after 30 years+ in the business, you may be in trouble.
But most of us with that long experience is more likely into decision making regarding coding, than actually doing the coding ourselves, and here our experince is very valuable and wanted.
As far as I know, the winXP software isn't fully internationalized yet, so the difference in user experience and usefulness may not be that much if your native language isn't english.
But in Linux you have the source and can improve on the situation. In the MS case, the only thing you can do is wait and hope.