About Desktop folder - sorry, but OS X and Windows XP lists Desktop folder as part of User home directory too, so it is how developers see that. KDE also uses Desktop folder too, so my guess there are common agreement between desktop devs about that.
First of all Apple is not always right, only almost always. BTW, the original MacOS did not have a Desktop folder.
The difference between Gnome, Windows and KDE is that KDE and windows doesn't use the spatial methaphore, Gnome and the old MacOS-9 do. What's right in one setting isn't always right in another.
Changeing the actual directory names would probably not be a good idea as that would create internationalizon problems. You could however uses.desktop files to accomplish that, but that would require Nautilus to be fixed so that it always displayed the internationalized name in e.g. the new paht bar.
What Gnome needs is for its developers to loose the UNIX-think. One example: Most users see their physical file cabinet, desktop, and trash can as separate entities.
Just the same we see a Desktop folder when we open a Nautilus window. First of all that could fool the user into believing that the contents of his Desktop folder actually was copies of what he sees on his real desktop. What if he decides to delete the file in on one of the places. That would lead to loss of data.
Showing the Desktop in two places is also inconsistent with the spatialness of Gnome. By the way it is also inconsistent with how the Trash is handled. The Trash is visible on the desktop or as a panel applet, but it still isn't displayed as a visible folder in Nautilus. I really think that the Desktop folder should be handled the same way. Preferably the Desktop folder could be hidden by using the.hidden mechanism allready present in Gnome.(Files listed in.hidden of a directory behaves as if they were dot files).
Speaking of hidden files, direcories rarely visitid by non sysadmin users should be hidden files by default (though it shoud be possible to show hidden files). Candidates for default hiding would be:/etc,/proc,/usr/,/bin,/lib,/sbin,/dev,/root.
Not seeing these directories would be less intimidating to users with no or little UNIX experience, and thus with no knowledge what they were for. Regardless if you know what these files are used for, not seeing them in non sysadmin situations would speed up navigation. This would be especially true if.hidden files also worked in file dialogs.
I think you miss the point. This is not about open source applications or not. The only thing they require is that they are in full control of their own information.
By specifying an open free for all standard they give equal opportunity to all software houses. Nothing prevented Microsoft from supplying such solution, but Microsoft didn't. So, surprice, they don't get to sell their product.
From the governments point of wiew a open format is a good thing as their vender will have no protection sheild of vender lock in. This means that venders will have to offer other things to compete, e.g. low price, or better service. This makes good capitalistic sense in the long run from the buyers i.e. the tax payers perspective.
Your car example doesn't fit in. A more accurate car analogy would be that the govenment refuses to buy cars from GM that only can run on roads that are built by GM instead of cars tha can run on all roads. If that was the case I would strongly suspect tax payers to object very much and urge the government to buy the all road car.
I wouldn't say that Linux is difficult to install, at least not in an enterprise environment.
In less time than it takes to install one instance of windows XP, a Linux admin would be able to set up an install server that detects network cards with unknown MAC addresses and installs Linux and whatever other software needed on them fully automatic. If he uses Red Hat, he will even have GUIs to help him do that.
In other words, when you get a new employee give him a new computer, tell him to plug it in in his room, and have a coffy break. This offcourse requires that the computer is set to boot over the network, but if you are a large company you seldom have any problems order such things from the maufactuerer.
Besides, it matters little if Linux is harder to install for non tech savy users, than starting a preinstalled windows box. In most businesses non tech savy users don't install software, and if they did, it would be just as difficult for them to install word or whatever software they need on top of a preinstalled windows box as it would be to install Linux+software. That's why sysadmins usually do this for them.
To them Linux poses no problem, even if they don't use automated techniques as I described, a GNU/Linux is usually much faster to perform than windows+software. Once installed it is also much easier to support the user remotely, e.g. by screen sharing or just by being able to log in to the users computer and do diagnostics.
Could it be that Microsoft is well aware of the name conflict, and selects a temporary name they know would get this kind of attention.
That way they get lots of free press telling the world that they are about to release a new OS, and at the same time they try to wash out common nicknames names like Longwait, and NoHorn from peoples minds.
When the OS is released it will be named to something completely different.
They will, until Firefox, Opera and the new IE7 have a combined marketshare domination, web developers will start to pay less attention to make special fixes to make their web content fit IE6.
This will give a worse web experience to users of win2k. Probably so much worse that it can't be ignored. These users will upgrade just like most users of old Netscape 4.7x that once was the state of the art web browser by now have upgraded.
Even though the software patent law in EU was thrown out a while ago, it doesn't mean that doesn't mean that question of software patents will be gone for ever. This was probably just one battle in a long war for software patents.
The more trival and stupid patents that gets granted in the US the easier it will be to show that software patents are bad, whenever the patent law issue pops up its ugly head the next time.
While american idustry spends their money on patent lawyers and courts, other parts of the world where software or process patents are not allowed can spend their money on product development, giving them a competitive edge.
No, patents are still bad. But stories like this help to fight the common misconception that patents are only harmful to FOSS. And that is a good thing.
If you run it as root under Linux, you could use SELinux to limit what a process can do, what files it can see and change. You can control what is doable with files created by or downloaded from the browser.
E.g. you could make it impossible to execute files downloaded by your browser if you did it as root (or any other user you want to limit). That means that in fact, the root user could be given less permissions when running their browser than an ordinary user running the same program.
The SELinux security system is separate and independent of the ordinary Unix permission/ACL system. By having two independent way ways of control security. Just leaving security to the application writer will always give you a higher chance of penetration.
It seams that Microsoft and other organizations in favor of closed source software have done a very good PR job.
Whenever, the software patent isssue comes up, there is always sombody saying this will be the end of open source. And yes, software patents would be bad for open source, just like it would be bad for any software project, open source or not.
In fact, traditional closed source companies such as Microsoft may be just as much at risk, perhaps even more. Sure they many patent issues could be resolved by cross licensing, but that doesn't help against IP extortonists that doesn't produce any software themselves.
Now, if you are going to do a patent extortion scam, who would you target. Open source companies with small budgets and little chance of getting any rewards even if you win in court or some large company with deep pockets.
Software patent is bad for software business period. It is not something that is specific to FOSS,even Harward Business school professors is of that oppinion.
Didn't Sun and Kodak have some patent dispute over Java a while ago where Kodak won. What risks would this Apache projects involve with respect to Kodak patents?
Not mentioned in the Fedora Core aritle but according to Mozillazine, Firefox 1.1 will also include SVG support turned on by default. I'm told that they are allready turned on in the nightly builds for windows. Linux will join in later.
Sorry, but nothing prevents you from running Apache License v2.0. on OSes like Linux. Nothing prevents you from shipping Linux distros with such software preinstalled. This is the major problem with the java implementation currently available from Sun.
Today, there is GPLed java software, I wonder what java that runs on. Running it on a Apache Licenced java engine wouldn't be more of a license violation than running it on Sun java as they in most cases do today, exept for a very small amount of programs that actually works on GNU/Classpath.
Sure, there will always be boring jobs. But in a school system that spend less on IT, there might be more money to spare for actually teaching the pupils basic skills like reading and writing.
This is probably more essential to success in a job than knowing MS-Word or some other software. Software versions come and go, but the basic skills will remain the same. It doesn't matter if you know all the menus in MS-Word by heart, if you don't know how to write.
So, even if it wouldn't help the poor sods that end up with these boring underpayd jobs it would help society.
So, now Bob's PC will have to sell genuin copies of windows or they will risk being turned in.
This will make PCs with windows more expensive, either because Bob's PC actually sell legal copies of windows, or because he will need a higher margin to compensate for the risk of being caught.
That will make it more tempting for Bob to sell PCs with other operating systems such as GNU/Linux, that may be copied leagally as much as he wants.
This cracking down on piracy is probably going to turn out to be bad business for Microsoft. Today a lot of people that really wouldn't have bought windows and MS-Office use it.
If people are prevented from pirating windows they will use something else, e.g. Linux and OpenOffice. This means that they no longer are part of the Microsoft infrastructure. Fammilies who can't afford several copies of windows will demand that the school should use free software so that their children can do their homework. They will no longer diskuss new cool features they have discovered in windows at coffee breaks at work. If they discuss anything they will discuss Linux how cool it is.
What is Microsoft thinking. This can't be good for them in the long run.
Whats resonable evidently depend on what industry we are looking at.
In the computer industry an idea might get obsolete in the time it takes to take a bogus patent to court and get it invalidated. (Given you have the money needed).
In the pharmaceutical industry it is easy to search for prior art in computer industry it is not. This makes it very hard for software companies to know if they are violating somebody elses patent.
To a software company patents mean an unknown business risk. To pharmaceutical company they mean protection of valuable research.
If software patents lasted for a more resonable time, and most of the patents filed wasn't obvios to people in the trade (i.e. bogus) there wouldn't be a problem.
The distance from any place in Netherlands to nearest border is less than what people in northern Sweden would consider to travel to visit a favorite pub on a saturday evning. So I imagine that most people down there will buy their ipod from abroad.
In that respect the law seam incredibly stupid, but look at it this way. By granting a law like this, they can show the record industry that they act forcefully to prevent piracy. That may make it easier to prevent even more stupid suggestions from reccord industry lobbyists.
This is two companies with quite similar products, e.g. Freehand/Illustrator, Dreamweaver/Golive, Flash/SVG stuff.
Wouldn't antitrust laws prevent this from happening? If not this is the beginning of yet another software giant that will be in the position to charge their customers whatever they like.
We all define simple in different ways. It is true that you sometimes need to select some packages when you install Linux.
In Linux you usually do these selections by clicking a few checkboxes and klick the continu button a few times and you are ready.
In windows you do it by visiting an online store paying a couple of hundred or dollars or more. Worry that your credit card info will be missused, Then you wait just for FedEx to deliver a package. You open it to find the CDs insert them into your computer and click OK a couple of times. Then you call Microsoft or whatever software vender you bought the package from to get activation codes. Then are all set to go.
If you want another package just repeat the procedure. Could it be more simple?
I fail to see what this has to do with open source. Propriatory software is just as vulnerable to litegation over IP as open source.
In fact closed source companies are even more vulnerable, as they usually have more money to pay damages.
Another thing, the temptation of stealing IP, by a developer pressed for time before a release date is probably more tempted to "borrow" code he has no licence to use. than a FOSS developer that have no deadline, and have all his code out in the open. After all who is going to know if the source is not available.
Sure, companies like Apple or Microsoft could sue some FOSS project, the outcome of that would most likely be a lot of bad publicity, and that FOSS somehow would go around the problem.
The real problem is IP robber barons that doens't make any software of their own but just collect and patent ideas waiting to strike when sombody implements them and makes a profit.
If you think FOSS is more vulnerable you have fallen into the Microsoft FUD trap. They want us associate IP problems with FOSS, and have us think that propriatory software is safe. Nothing could be more untrue.
We use it, and have been doing so since version 1.0.
It's a good replacement for MS-Office as long as you don't need Outlook or MS-Access. We use the Mozilla suit and Postgresql so that is not a problem to us.
In fact not having an Access replacement have been a good thing as putting databases in one central place simplifies backups and you dont end up with different versions of the same database. Hope people will avoid Base in 2.0, even thought it probably will work very well for people who like these kind of things.
Even the 1.0 version opens MS-Office documents sent to us resonably well. Sometimes we have actually managed to use it to recover data from broken MS-Word documents that wouldn't open in the Microsoft suit.
All in all OpenOffice a very nice Office suit. It really doesn't make sense paying for MS-Office when you can get OOo for free.
Slashdot Mirror
About Desktop folder - sorry, but OS X and Windows XP lists Desktop folder as part of User home directory too, so it is how developers see that. KDE also uses Desktop folder too, so my guess there are common agreement between desktop devs about that.
.desktop files to accomplish that, but that would require Nautilus to be fixed so that it always displayed the internationalized name in e.g. the new paht bar.
First of all Apple is not always right, only almost always. BTW, the original MacOS did not have a Desktop folder.
The difference between Gnome, Windows and KDE is that KDE and windows doesn't use the spatial methaphore, Gnome and the old MacOS-9 do.
What's right in one setting isn't always right in another.
Changeing the actual directory names would probably not be a good idea as that would create internationalizon problems. You could however uses
What Gnome needs is for its developers to loose the UNIX-think. One example: Most users see their physical file cabinet, desktop, and trash can as separate entities.
.hidden mechanism allready present in Gnome.(Files listed in .hidden of a directory behaves as if they were dot files).
/etc, /proc, /usr/, /bin, /lib, /sbin, /dev, /root.
.hidden files also worked in file dialogs.
Just the same we see a Desktop folder when we open a Nautilus window. First of all that could fool the user into believing that the contents of his Desktop folder actually was copies of what he sees on his real desktop. What if he decides to delete the file in on one of the places. That would lead to loss of data.
Showing the Desktop in two places is also inconsistent with the spatialness of Gnome. By the way it is also inconsistent with how the Trash is handled. The Trash is visible on the desktop or as a panel applet, but it still isn't displayed as a visible folder in Nautilus. I really think that the Desktop folder should be handled the same way.
Preferably the Desktop folder could be hidden by using the
Speaking of hidden files, direcories rarely visitid by non sysadmin users should be hidden files by default (though it shoud be possible to show hidden files). Candidates for default hiding would be:
Not seeing these directories would be less intimidating to users with no or little UNIX experience, and thus with no knowledge what they were for. Regardless if you know what these files are used for, not seeing them in non sysadmin situations would speed up navigation. This would be especially true if
A bowl of rice or a few rupies?
I think you miss the point. This is not about open source applications or not. The only thing they require is that they are in full control of their own information.
By specifying an open free for all standard they give equal opportunity to all software houses. Nothing prevented Microsoft from supplying such solution, but Microsoft didn't. So, surprice, they don't get to sell their product.
From the governments point of wiew a open format is a good thing as their vender will have no protection sheild of vender lock in. This means that venders will have to offer other things to compete, e.g. low price, or better service. This makes good capitalistic sense in the long run from the buyers i.e. the tax payers perspective.
Your car example doesn't fit in. A more accurate car analogy would be that the govenment refuses to buy cars from GM that only can run on roads that are built by GM instead of cars tha can run on all roads. If that was the case I would strongly suspect tax payers to object very much and urge the government to buy the all road car.
Thats good. The problem is that they don't tell you when they plan to have it done.
In the mean time Postgresql is a good solution.
In fact it may stay a good solution even after MySQL is done, as the Postgresql licence gives you freedoms not available from MySQL.
I wouldn't say that Linux is difficult to install, at least not in an enterprise environment.
In less time than it takes to install one instance of windows XP, a Linux admin would be able to set up an install server that detects network cards with unknown MAC addresses and installs Linux and whatever other software needed on them fully automatic. If he uses Red Hat, he will even have GUIs to help him do that.
In other words, when you get a new employee give him a new computer, tell him to plug it in in his room, and have a coffy break. This offcourse requires that the computer is set to boot over the network, but if you are a large company you seldom have any problems order such things from the maufactuerer.
Besides, it matters little if Linux is harder to install for non tech savy users, than starting a preinstalled windows box. In most businesses non tech savy users don't install software, and if they did, it would be just as difficult for them to install word or whatever software they need on top of a preinstalled windows box as it would be to install Linux+software. That's why sysadmins usually do this for them.
To them Linux poses no problem, even if they don't use automated techniques as I described, a GNU/Linux is usually much faster to perform than windows+software. Once installed it is also much easier to support the user remotely, e.g. by screen sharing or just by being able to log in to the users computer and do diagnostics.
Could it be that Microsoft is well aware of the name conflict, and selects a temporary name they know would get this kind of attention.
That way they get lots of free press telling the world that they are about to release a new OS, and at the same time they try to wash out common nicknames names like Longwait, and NoHorn from peoples minds.
When the OS is released it will be named to something completely different.
They will, until Firefox, Opera and the new IE7 have a combined marketshare domination, web developers will start to pay less attention to make special fixes to make their web content fit IE6.
This will give a worse web experience to users of win2k. Probably so much worse that it can't be ignored. These users will upgrade just like most users of old Netscape 4.7x that once was the state of the art web browser by now have upgraded.
Even though the software patent law in EU was thrown out a while ago, it doesn't mean that doesn't mean that question of software patents will be gone for ever. This was probably just one battle in a long war for software patents.
The more trival and stupid patents that gets granted in the US the easier it will be to show that software patents are bad, whenever the patent law issue pops up its ugly head the next time.
While american idustry spends their money on patent lawyers and courts, other parts of the world where software or process patents are not allowed can spend their money on product development, giving them a competitive edge.
No, patents are still bad. But stories like this help to fight the common misconception that patents are only harmful to FOSS. And that is a good thing.
If you run it as root under Linux, you could use SELinux to limit what a process can do, what files it can see and change. You can control what is doable with files created by or downloaded from the browser.
E.g. you could make it impossible to execute files downloaded by your browser if you did it as root (or any other user you want to limit).
That means that in fact, the root user could be given less permissions when running their browser than an ordinary user running the same program.
The SELinux security system is separate and independent of the ordinary Unix permission/ACL
system. By having two independent way ways of control security. Just leaving security to the application writer will always give you a higher chance of penetration.
It seams that Microsoft and other organizations in favor of closed source software have done a very good PR job.
Whenever, the software patent isssue comes up, there is always sombody saying this will be the end of open source. And yes, software patents would be bad for open source, just like it would be bad for any software project, open source or not.
In fact, traditional closed source companies such as Microsoft may be just as much at risk, perhaps even more. Sure they many patent issues could be resolved by cross licensing, but that doesn't help against IP extortonists that doesn't produce any software themselves.
Now, if you are going to do a patent extortion scam, who would you target. Open source companies with small budgets and little chance of getting any rewards even if you win in court or some large company with deep pockets.
Software patent is bad for software business period. It is not something that is specific to FOSS,even Harward Business school professors is of that oppinion.
Didn't Sun and Kodak have some patent dispute over Java a while ago where Kodak won. What risks would this Apache projects involve with respect to Kodak patents?
Not mentioned in the Fedora Core aritle but according to Mozillazine, Firefox 1.1 will also include SVG support turned on by default. I'm told that they are allready turned on in the nightly builds for windows. Linux will join in later.
Sorry, but nothing prevents you from running Apache License v2.0. on OSes like Linux. Nothing prevents you from shipping Linux distros with such software preinstalled. This is the major problem with the java implementation currently available from Sun.
Today, there is GPLed java software, I wonder what java that runs on. Running it on a Apache Licenced java engine wouldn't be more of a license violation than running it on Sun java
as they in most cases do today, exept for a very small amount of programs that actually works on GNU/Classpath.
Sure, there will always be boring jobs. But in a school system that spend less on IT, there might be more money to spare for actually teaching the pupils basic skills like reading and writing.
This is probably more essential to success in a job than knowing MS-Word or some other software. Software versions come and go, but the basic skills will remain the same. It doesn't matter if you know all the menus in MS-Word by heart, if you don't know how to write.
So, even if it wouldn't help the poor sods that end up with these boring underpayd jobs it would help society.
If you get these questions you know that they job is going to be boring and underpaid, and you wouldn't want it anyway.
So, now Bob's PC will have to sell genuin copies of windows or they will risk being turned in.
This will make PCs with windows more expensive, either because Bob's PC actually sell legal copies of windows, or because he will need a higher margin to compensate for the risk of being caught.
That will make it more tempting for Bob to sell PCs with other operating systems such as GNU/Linux, that may be copied leagally as much as he wants.
This cracking down on piracy is probably going to turn out to be bad business for Microsoft. Today a lot of people that really wouldn't have bought windows and MS-Office use it.
If people are prevented from pirating windows they will use something else, e.g. Linux and OpenOffice. This means that they no longer are part of the Microsoft infrastructure. Fammilies who can't afford several copies of windows will demand that the school should use free software so that their children can do their homework.
They will no longer diskuss new cool features they have discovered in windows at coffee breaks at work. If they discuss anything they will discuss Linux how cool it is.
What is Microsoft thinking. This can't be good for them in the long run.
Whats resonable evidently depend on what industry we are looking at.
In the computer industry an idea might get obsolete in the time it takes to take a bogus patent to court and get it invalidated. (Given you have the money needed).
In the pharmaceutical industry it is easy to search for prior art in computer industry it is not. This makes it very hard for software companies to know if they are violating somebody elses patent.
To a software company patents mean an unknown business risk. To pharmaceutical company they mean protection of valuable research.
If software patents lasted for a more resonable time, and most of the patents filed wasn't obvios to people in the trade (i.e. bogus) there wouldn't be a problem.
The distance from any place in Netherlands to nearest border is less than what people in northern Sweden would consider to travel to visit a favorite pub on a saturday evning. So I imagine that most people down there will buy their ipod from abroad.
In that respect the law seam incredibly stupid, but look at it this way. By granting a law like this, they can show the record industry that they act forcefully to prevent piracy. That may make it easier to prevent even more stupid suggestions from reccord industry lobbyists.
This is two companies with quite similar products, e.g. Freehand/Illustrator, Dreamweaver/Golive, Flash/SVG stuff.
Wouldn't antitrust laws prevent this from happening?
If not this is the beginning of yet another software giant that will be in the position to charge their customers whatever they like.
We all define simple in different ways. It is true that you sometimes need to select some packages when you install Linux.
In Linux you usually do these selections by clicking a few checkboxes and klick the continu button a few times and you are ready.
In windows you do it by visiting an online store paying a couple of hundred or dollars or more. Worry that your credit card info will be missused,
Then you wait just for FedEx to deliver a package. You open it to find the CDs insert them into your computer and click OK a couple of times. Then you call Microsoft or whatever software vender you bought the package from to get activation codes. Then are all set to go.
If you want another package just repeat the procedure. Could it be more simple?
I fail to see what this has to do with open source. Propriatory software is just as vulnerable to litegation over IP as open source.
In fact closed source companies are even more vulnerable, as they usually have more money to pay damages.
Another thing, the temptation of stealing IP, by a developer pressed for time before a release date is probably more tempted to "borrow" code he has no licence to use. than a FOSS developer that have no deadline, and have all his code out in the open. After all who is going to know if the source is not available.
Sure, companies like Apple or Microsoft could sue some FOSS project, the outcome of that would most likely be a lot of bad publicity, and that FOSS somehow would go around the problem.
The real problem is IP robber barons that doens't make any software of their own but just collect and patent ideas waiting to strike when sombody implements them and makes a profit.
If you think FOSS is more vulnerable you have fallen into the Microsoft FUD trap. They want us associate IP problems with FOSS, and have us think that propriatory software is safe. Nothing could be more untrue.
We use it, and have been doing so since version
1.0.
It's a good replacement for MS-Office as long as you don't need Outlook or MS-Access. We use the Mozilla suit and Postgresql so that is not a problem to us.
In fact not having an Access replacement have been a good thing as putting databases in one central place simplifies backups and you dont end up with different versions of the same database.
Hope people will avoid Base in 2.0, even thought it probably will work very well for people who like these kind of things.
Even the 1.0 version opens MS-Office documents sent to us resonably well. Sometimes we have actually managed to use it to recover data from broken MS-Word documents that wouldn't open in the Microsoft suit.
All in all OpenOffice a very nice Office suit. It really doesn't make sense paying for MS-Office when you can get OOo for free.
The URL in parent should have been:d =4799499
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_i