So what you're saying is that just because you were walkind down a particular street when a riot broke out, and the police arrested everyone (including you) for simply being there, that you should pay for your mistake of walking down that street for the rest of your life?
That's because Intel is in the business of selling hardware, not software (though they do sell some.. it's just an additional business model). Releasing GPL code sells more hardware, so it's in their best interest. Show me a company in which it's software is part of it's core business and almost all of them will be very GPL phobic. Perhaps one of the biggest exceptions is Google, but even they are VERY careful not to release any of their core code with GPL requirements.
Wow. That's a shocker. So you're saying that because Microsoft used BSD networking code in the first versions of Widows NT, it made all BSD networking code no long free?
Actually, there was never anything wrong with Java in that regard. There were, however, two major problems with Java and it has developed a very bad reputation for desktop apps that it can't seem to shake.
The first was the Swing sucked. It was a very poorly designed GUI app, and did not run natively on any platform, while both WinForms and GTK# run natively on their respective platforms (Windows and Linux.. i'm sure there must be a Cocoa# somewhere too).
The second was that Java overpromised too much at a time when hardware resources were still way too limited. Java today is far more usable than it was in 96-2000 because hardware has grown so much since then.
Except, of course, for the fact that GNotes author has been basically AWOL for months, and no real new development has occured in ages... He recently passed ownership to someone else who hasn't done much other than some new translations.
10MB is peanuts today. Have you looked at how much memory most apps in Linux use? While Tomboy may be a "silly little virtual notepad", it's a bit more than that.. it has a lot of functionality, not to mention has a very polished UI. graphics take up a lot of memory. It also has spell checking, search capabilities, plug-in architecture (with several plug-ins), etc.. all that takes memory.
By the way, GNote, the Tomboy replacement written in C, takes up more memory by my calculations.. 18MB.
So let me ask you a question. Do you really think software vendors should be prohibited from adding features to their products that interact with each other? Or just Microsoft should be prohibited?
Sharepoint and office work together very well, and MS publishes the interface to allow this (which OOo utilizes). Everyone says Microsoft "holds back technology", but it seems that it's the Microsoft haters that want to continually hold back technology simply because it's Microsoft doing it.
It could be argued that, but such an argument would be a losing proposition..NET uses Winforms, which is a very thin layer on top of the native USER. WPF, on the other hand, is about as native as QT.
If you're arguing that QT can be used by C/C++ apps, which will be "native" rather than.NET then you don't understand.NET, it's completely native as the bytecodes are compiled before executing. It's never interpreted, at least on Windows.
Most DOS games work fine in a dos emulator, like DOSBox or DOSEmu... but if your apps don't work there, there's always simply using the free VMWare player to run a full virtual machine that boots DOS.
The only things that won't work will be stuff that needs a dongle.
This is BS. Most proper standards define a way to extend the standard with "proprietary" extensions in a way that they are put forth by a company, added to a register and implemented to that "proprietary standard".
Yes, they do. But that is irrelevant. What's wrong is that the open standards advocates are pushing to have open standards be the requirement, disallowing any and all extensions to the standard, meaning if you have a product that implements an extended standard, you are disqualified from submitting it in a bid, and a few countries have already taken the bait.
What vendor is going to create a product that will intentionally diqualify them from government contracts? Very few, and certainly not big ones. That effectively means the development of that application is limited only to features that do not require storage in the document format.
For example OpenGL has a lot of these and it's an excellent breading ground for the "glacially slow" standard standards.
But there aren't any governments mandating the use of only standard OpenGL, and OpenGL has also been glacially slow to the point that many vendors stopped making OpenGL apps because they couldn't be sure if the etensions they needed were going to be present on any given system.
HTML is a biased example because of it's history. The process has been subverted and it's broken, thanks to the early "web", large part in Microsoft and Netscape.
Most innovations happen on a way higher level than document format standards, but if the need arises proprietary extensions can be defined for a document format, then that can slowly be worked into a new version of the main standard.
I have no problem with that either, so long as governments allow bids with such extensions. The problem is that open standards advocates are pushing governemnts to disallow that.
I see absolutely no issues here with requiring openness. It doesn't stifle innovation one bit.
Now you're being disingenuous. Certainly you can see how it stifles innovation at a little, this was alluded to in your comment "can slowly be worked into a new version of the main standard".
Oh, please. C++ and JavaScript are languages, this is the equivelent of XML in the document format. The programs written in those languages is the data expressed by the language, ie the data contents and those are NOT standardized.
And parts for a car is a VERY bad example, because other than nuts and bolts, most parts are entirely proprietary, and unique to that car, not standardized.
How difficult is it to understand that if the document format is standardized, and you do not allow any kind of extension to that format, then you can no longer add new features of any kind to it? And when it comes to Office documents, no new document features typically means no new application features.
Standards are good for low level protocols, like TCP/IP. But they're less good when it comes to higher level protocols (including data formats, because it prevents vendors from creating new things, lest they "extend" the standard and no longer be in the running for those juicy conctracts.
HTML is a great example... Sure, you can tack on new ways of viewing the code, or add-in mechanisms, or just making the browser work better, but at some point you hit a wall, and you really need to extend the format to do new cool things, and the HTML standards committee's are glacially slow.. We wouldn't have Canvas, for instance, if Apple had waited for a standards body to create it.
Office suites are a million functions that work on data in a common way... What if office documents had been "standardized" at Wordperfect and 123 1.0... I suppose some would argue that would have been a good thing, but most would find that incredibly constraining.
I think it's a better approach to mandate that if a vendor wants to compete for a government contract, they are required to completely document whichever document format is their standard one.
You're wrong sir. With open standards, any company can bid on projects. If their goal though is to secure future business by locking down their customer to only use their software, that's where I have a problem.
I hear this party line all the time, but it ignores one simple fact. By mandating a single standard, it means word processors are effectively a dead end. no company can come up with a new feature that requires storage in the document format. This means that, for all intents and purposes, word processor development will come to a stand still.
Sure, you can extend the format, but then you're no longer conforming to the open standard, and you are now disqualified from bidding.
Well, I don't know about right now, but as of about 2 years ago any email I sent from my domain silently disappeared when sent to gmail and hotmail. It didn't even go into the users spam folder, just disappeared. Adding an SPF record fixed it. So maybe you're right, they don't "reject" the mail, they just ignore it.
No. Folder virtualization allows an app to write to a "protected" folder, like \Windows\System32 and have the file redirected to a folder in their user profile instead. This allows apps that misbehave to still work. It's a compatibility crutch, one which I don't like.
Or do what everyone else does who installs XP frequently, create your own slipstreamed copy with the latest service pack and drivers. Takes about 30 minutes and there are plenty of tutorials on the web that show you in pretty brain dead detail how to do it.
I don't think you've seen a high resolution flat panel in the last 10 years. Nowadays, they have scaling technology built in that makes them look good at virtually any resolution. It's simply no longer the case lower resolutions than native look terrible.
YOU probably wouldn't. But there are others who are more aligned with Microsoft's goals, to them CodePlex makes sense. And, if you actually read his responses, which by your comment it appears you didn't, you would see that he's said several times that the CPF is not a forge, it just has the same name as MS's forge... it has a different purpose.
It's not a dumb example because you can't control the fonts of many applications. That means you end up with some apps with big fonts, and some with tiny ones, not to mention who wants to configure the fonts every time they install a new app.
Slashdot Mirror
You only get free upgrades (as opposed to updates) for Free (as in beer) distro's.
So what you're saying is that just because you were walkind down a particular street when a riot broke out, and the police arrested everyone (including you) for simply being there, that you should pay for your mistake of walking down that street for the rest of your life?
Wow.
That's because Intel is in the business of selling hardware, not software (though they do sell some.. it's just an additional business model). Releasing GPL code sells more hardware, so it's in their best interest. Show me a company in which it's software is part of it's core business and almost all of them will be very GPL phobic. Perhaps one of the biggest exceptions is Google, but even they are VERY careful not to release any of their core code with GPL requirements.
Wow. That's a shocker. So you're saying that because Microsoft used BSD networking code in the first versions of Widows NT, it made all BSD networking code no long free?
Why has nobody said anything!
I think you might need to rethink your position.
Actually, there was never anything wrong with Java in that regard. There were, however, two major problems with Java and it has developed a very bad reputation for desktop apps that it can't seem to shake.
The first was the Swing sucked. It was a very poorly designed GUI app, and did not run natively on any platform, while both WinForms and GTK# run natively on their respective platforms (Windows and Linux.. i'm sure there must be a Cocoa# somewhere too).
The second was that Java overpromised too much at a time when hardware resources were still way too limited. Java today is far more usable than it was in 96-2000 because hardware has grown so much since then.
Except, of course, for the fact that GNotes author has been basically AWOL for months, and no real new development has occured in ages... He recently passed ownership to someone else who hasn't done much other than some new translations.
10MB is peanuts today. Have you looked at how much memory most apps in Linux use? While Tomboy may be a "silly little virtual notepad", it's a bit more than that.. it has a lot of functionality, not to mention has a very polished UI. graphics take up a lot of memory. It also has spell checking, search capabilities, plug-in architecture (with several plug-ins), etc.. all that takes memory.
By the way, GNote, the Tomboy replacement written in C, takes up more memory by my calculations.. 18MB.
So let me ask you a question. Do you really think software vendors should be prohibited from adding features to their products that interact with each other? Or just Microsoft should be prohibited?
Sharepoint and office work together very well, and MS publishes the interface to allow this (which OOo utilizes). Everyone says Microsoft "holds back technology", but it seems that it's the Microsoft haters that want to continually hold back technology simply because it's Microsoft doing it.
"Native" in this sense means "uses the OS's GUI" not "does not run in a VM". QT draws it's own widgets, not using the OS ones.
It could be argued that, but such an argument would be a losing proposition. .NET uses Winforms, which is a very thin layer on top of the native USER. WPF, on the other hand, is about as native as QT.
If you're arguing that QT can be used by C/C++ apps, which will be "native" rather than .NET then you don't understand .NET, it's completely native as the bytecodes are compiled before executing. It's never interpreted, at least on Windows.
Most DOS games work fine in a dos emulator, like DOSBox or DOSEmu... but if your apps don't work there, there's always simply using the free VMWare player to run a full virtual machine that boots DOS.
The only things that won't work will be stuff that needs a dongle.
Yes, they do. But that is irrelevant. What's wrong is that the open standards advocates are pushing to have open standards be the requirement, disallowing any and all extensions to the standard, meaning if you have a product that implements an extended standard, you are disqualified from submitting it in a bid, and a few countries have already taken the bait.
What vendor is going to create a product that will intentionally diqualify them from government contracts? Very few, and certainly not big ones. That effectively means the development of that application is limited only to features that do not require storage in the document format.
But there aren't any governments mandating the use of only standard OpenGL, and OpenGL has also been glacially slow to the point that many vendors stopped making OpenGL apps because they couldn't be sure if the etensions they needed were going to be present on any given system.
I'm not even talking about that far back. Let's look at HTML5 and CSS3. The WhatWG admits that HTML5 won't be ratified as a standard until 2022.
I have no problem with that either, so long as governments allow bids with such extensions. The problem is that open standards advocates are pushing governemnts to disallow that.
Now you're being disingenuous. Certainly you can see how it stifles innovation at a little, this was alluded to in your comment "can slowly be worked into a new version of the main standard".
Oh, please. C++ and JavaScript are languages, this is the equivelent of XML in the document format. The programs written in those languages is the data expressed by the language, ie the data contents and those are NOT standardized.
And parts for a car is a VERY bad example, because other than nuts and bolts, most parts are entirely proprietary, and unique to that car, not standardized.
How difficult is it to understand that if the document format is standardized, and you do not allow any kind of extension to that format, then you can no longer add new features of any kind to it? And when it comes to Office documents, no new document features typically means no new application features.
Standards are good for low level protocols, like TCP/IP. But they're less good when it comes to higher level protocols (including data formats, because it prevents vendors from creating new things, lest they "extend" the standard and no longer be in the running for those juicy conctracts.
HTML is a great example... Sure, you can tack on new ways of viewing the code, or add-in mechanisms, or just making the browser work better, but at some point you hit a wall, and you really need to extend the format to do new cool things, and the HTML standards committee's are glacially slow.. We wouldn't have Canvas, for instance, if Apple had waited for a standards body to create it.
Office suites are a million functions that work on data in a common way... What if office documents had been "standardized" at Wordperfect and 123 1.0... I suppose some would argue that would have been a good thing, but most would find that incredibly constraining.
I think it's a better approach to mandate that if a vendor wants to compete for a government contract, they are required to completely document whichever document format is their standard one.
You're wrong sir. With open standards, any company can bid on projects. If their goal though is to secure future business by locking down their customer to only use their software, that's where I have a problem.
I hear this party line all the time, but it ignores one simple fact. By mandating a single standard, it means word processors are effectively a dead end. no company can come up with a new feature that requires storage in the document format. This means that, for all intents and purposes, word processor development will come to a stand still.
Sure, you can extend the format, but then you're no longer conforming to the open standard, and you are now disqualified from bidding.
Well, I don't know about right now, but as of about 2 years ago any email I sent from my domain silently disappeared when sent to gmail and hotmail. It didn't even go into the users spam folder, just disappeared. Adding an SPF record fixed it. So maybe you're right, they don't "reject" the mail, they just ignore it.
No. Folder virtualization allows an app to write to a "protected" folder, like \Windows\System32 and have the file redirected to a folder in their user profile instead. This allows apps that misbehave to still work. It's a compatibility crutch, one which I don't like.
Or do what everyone else does who installs XP frequently, create your own slipstreamed copy with the latest service pack and drivers. Takes about 30 minutes and there are plenty of tutorials on the web that show you in pretty brain dead detail how to do it.
I don't think you've seen a high resolution flat panel in the last 10 years. Nowadays, they have scaling technology built in that makes them look good at virtually any resolution. It's simply no longer the case lower resolutions than native look terrible.
What does that have to do with anything that I said?
I said nothing about easy to use tools, or whether they exist or not. I'm talking about default font sizes in apps
I agree, that doesn't change the fact that people want to USE that software and be able to read the text it displays.
The "use different software" argument just doesn't work for most people.
Why would a 15" laptop try to drive itself at 1600x1200?
Uhh.. because that's its native resolution? You know, like these:
http://cgi.ebay.com/IBM-ThinkPad-T42P-1-8GHz-1GB-15-1-UXGA-DVDRW-WIFI-XP_W0QQitemZ230407956950QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLaptops_Nov05
Wow. It's hard to imagine someone intelligent can have such reading comprehension problems.
I didn't say you did write any of it. Read what I wrote, not what you want me to have written.
YOU probably wouldn't. But there are others who are more aligned with Microsoft's goals, to them CodePlex makes sense. And, if you actually read his responses, which by your comment it appears you didn't, you would see that he's said several times that the CPF is not a forge, it just has the same name as MS's forge... it has a different purpose.
It's not a dumb example because you can't control the fonts of many applications. That means you end up with some apps with big fonts, and some with tiny ones, not to mention who wants to configure the fonts every time they install a new app.