OLE was released in 1990, while COM was released in 1992
That's correct, but it's irrelevant. COM existed before that, they just didn't commercialize it outside of OLE yet.
The point is that while OLE includes COM, COM does not include OLE, therefore COM is not OLE renamed, though you could say it's a subset of OLE renamed.
And no, ActiveX, DirectX, and COM+, nor OLEDB (despite it's name) have nothing to do with OLE, other than they use COM. OLE refers specifically to those bits surrounding Automation, Linking and Embedding, Compound Documents, etc.., none of that exists in other technologies based on COM.
Actually,.NET is far closer to SOM than COM is. One of the advantages of SOM was that it was, in essence, a runtime object system, so you could "inject" new methods into objects if you wanted (kind of like how smalltalk works)..NET allows just that sort of thing as well (though it's not widely known) through a process called Reflection for runtime discovory of objects, and you're allowed to modify objects on the fly.
No, SOM and.NET aren't exactly the same (and.NET is a lot more than that, including sandboxing, a virtual machine, etc..).
This sort of response is typical of those that don't really understand the Microsoft stack.
COM is not OLE renamed. COM is the basic transport structure that OLE, and other MS technologies, are based on. OLE is the name of a specific set of COM interfaces involving such things as Compound Documents, Automation, In-place activation, etc.. OLE also describes a lot of things that don't technically involve COM.
Other examples include ActiveX, DirectX, COM+ (despite it's name, it's not a new version of COM, it's just a specific set of interfaces like the others I mention), OLEDB, etc..
So, in the sense that both COM and SOM are the transport layers of the technology, they are roughly equal, even if their implementations are very different. Other technologies get built on these layers.
No, they're saying they won't bring a lawsuit for any version in which they participate in it's development unless you do it first. They don't promise not to sue if OASIS develops a version without their participation.
However, OASIS rules are not legally binding. Patents are. Sun's license explicitly covenants version 1.0, but then limits it's coverage for further revisions to revisions in which they participate. So Sun leaves OASIS, their non-legally binding rule says they can't withdraw from their obligations, but what consequences would there be if they did? Maybe OASIS could sue them, but I don't see that happening.
The problem with the IPR covenant is that Sun explicitly only limits their covenant not to sue to specific versions. If, as you say, they're required to provide such coverage in perpetude, why would they say differently in their document? Why the need to include version specific language?
That means you can't take notes, or draw things. No handwriting recognition, etc..
I was all set to buy an iPod Touch until I realized that this simple class of productivity app just wasn't included or even really capable of being used. Theoretically, they could use a tap-pad interface to enter notes, but that's clumsy and doesn't allow for free-form entry.
Good job Apple on the 32GB, now how about making it just a tad more useful.
Well, if Sun doesn't participate in the OASIS process, Sun gets no say in what OASIS does with the spec. So saying that Sun would have control is simply wrong. If anything, Sun not participating means Sun would have no control over what OASIS does with the spec.
That ignores the fact that ODF 2 would no longer enjoy patent immunity from Sun, as such, ODF would no longer be eligible for ISO approval, and anyone using anything with ODF2 could open themselves up to a patent lawsuit, which Sun hasn't been afraid to include in it's bag of tricks in the past.
One of the problems I have with the whole MS Office file design is that it includes both data and executables in the same file.
1998 called and wants it's argument back. There hasn't been such a thing as a macro virus in almost 10 years. Your argument is way out of date.
What there HAS been is exploitation of buffer overflows in document parsers. This doesn't require Macros to function. It's just a specially crafted document that exploits the flaws by dumping part of the document structure into memory and tricking the computer into executing it, and this is nothign that's unique to Microsoft or Windows or even the PC.
The fact of the matter is, Macro's are ubiquitious and users will kick and scream if you try to take them away. They're also safe, because sandboxing and access controls have made them difficult ot exploit in the last 10 years.
While I'm certain that Microsoft didn't invent it either, You are definitely mistaken about ARexx. ARexx didn't show up until 1987, and Windows had DDE at about the same time, though ARexx was definitely more powerful.
I too was an Amigahead in those days, but come on... not everything was invented by for the Amiga.
The part you're missing is that if any given voter can verify their vote, that means the votes can be audited. Each vote is stored, not just a running total. Each vote can be verified by the person that voted, and if they can't verify their vote, it's a red flag. If the running total doesn't match the actual votes cast, then that's a red flag. What's more, the process of printing out the vote card can just as easily print out a paper ballot that can be dropped into a box by the voter (and the paper ballot has the has on it to match it up to the electronic vote) for hand counting if neccessary (though it wouldn't really be necessary except in cases where someone simply refuses to trust the system).
I don't quite understand your point. You don't have to reveal who you voted for unless you want to, and someone can be coerced just as easily without such means. One can also prove how they voted by using a cell phone with a built-in camera to take a picture of their ballot.
There's no way to have traceability and anonymisation
That's not true. It just has to trace to a non-identifiable source. For instance, let's say you vote for Obama, when you vote you're issued a vote id, that ID is then hashed with some data you enter, sort of like a password and stored as the "real" voteid. That original (pre-hashed) code is then printed out on a voteid card to the voter. At any time after the election, they can go on the internet (even at a coffee shop or something if they want anonyminity) and enter the code and their password, and it will then print out the valid vote result, verifying that the vote was properly registered and counted.
I disagree. Remember, Bush stole the 2000 election largely because of paper ballots. The electronic voting was a compelling solution to the problems that lead to the 2000 voting irregularities. The problem was that the fox controlled the henhouse, and put his own foxes in charge.
Electronic voting has many other compelling benefits. As the number of voters grows, it takes longer and longer for the results to be tabulated, and shortcuts get taken to make the process faster (such as sampling balots to verify accuracy, which doesn't work if the ballots have been "pre-sorted" as we've seen).
Open Source is not the answer either, because Open Source does not guarantee that the actual code audited is the actual code used. The problem is one of process and auditability. If you have a solid process and unbreakable auditability, it doesn't matter who makes the voting machines, or whether they are open or closed source. If the input and output is verifiable, it's trustworthy. This includes hard copy audit trails that are voter verifiable (ie, they can see that the paper ballot printed equals what they entered into the system).
Hasannudin Saidin, the guy behind the Open Malaysia blog is IBM employee as well, but he doesn't come out and say it ANYWHERE on his blog. A google cache of a talk he gave on ODF reveals his real email address. hasan@my.ibm.com
So that makes Rob Weir, Bob Sutor, and Hasannudin Saidin as IBM employees who regularly blog against OOXML, of those only Bob Sutor openly identifies himself as an IBM employee. Andy Updegrove is the lawyer for OASIS (a fact he also buries on his blog). Rob has it buried in his "about", but Hasan doesn't do it at all.
Strange that IBM pays so many people to campaign against OOXML, is it not?
I think the problem is really more of a mindshare one. By the time Microsoft got serious about search, Google and Yahoo were already the number 1 and 2 search providers, with established entities like Alta Vista, Exite, etc.. dropping like flies because they couldn't keep up with the search results.
When you're using a product that works for all your needs, there is seldom a reason to move to another one. This is why Windows stays so far ahead of the game. People are happy with Google or Yahoo, and no matter what Microsoft does, no matter how good they could be, they won't get people off their muscle memory.
Look at Ask.com, by all accounts, they have a much better user interface, natural language processer, advertising, etc.. but they just can't seem to get any real customers.
Microsoft did not buy Word. They hired Charles Simonyi from XEROX PARC, who had developed word processors in the past. Word was written entirely from scratch.
Microsoft bought Webcorp in 1993, Windows for Workgroups was first released in October of 1992 according to this document http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126746 from MS. WfWG was in development for more than a year before they bought Webcorp and was released at least several months before.
What's more, WfWG was not just an add-on for Windows. It was really the entire basis of Windows 95. It introduced the VMM model that Windows 95 was basically entirely based on. Also, the networking stack of WfWG was the same stack that was built into NT, which they had licensed from Spider Software and was based on a licensed version of the BSD stack (predating the first open source release of BSD) and STREAMS technology.
Read it again. Why is it that nearly everybody seems to miss this when they read it? I've pointed out to several people in this thread so far, i've even bolded the text.
Ahh.. but that's just it. ODF proponents do not hold Sun and OASIS to the same.. ahem.. standard (pardon the pun) as they hold Microsoft. They gloss over the problems with ODF while nitpick OOXML to death.
If Sun do wish to cease participating in future versions of ODF, then they can use their patents against implementors of those future versions. It's not clear to me whether this means only against any new features introduced - I assume this must be the case, but IANAL.
Well, that's just it. The way it's written, Sun only promises not to sue a specific VERSION, not features. So it seems pretty clear that any version that Sun does not participate in has no coverage.
What part of "or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation" don't you understand?
It says, quite explicitly, that Sun irrevocably covenants that they won't sue for the 1.0 version (note that it's now up to 1.2) or any subsquent version that Sun participates in. Which means, if Sun doesn't participate (ie leaves the group) then they no longer covenant not to sue any new version that is created.
Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation
I've bolded the part that states that Sun only covenants versions in which it participates.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't have a blog, and Slashdot is the only place i've ever talked about OOXML.
Maybe you assume that two people using the same argument must be the same person. If that's the case, then wow. Rob Weir really gets around. By the way, i've attempted to respond to blogs like Rob Weir's, but he moderates his blog and only allows comments he agrees with to be posted. This gives the impression that he's got unanimous agreement.
I prefer to discuss OOXML here where there's at least some possibility of both sides being represented.
Slashdot Mirror
OLE was released in 1990, while COM was released in 1992
That's correct, but it's irrelevant. COM existed before that, they just didn't commercialize it outside of OLE yet.
The point is that while OLE includes COM, COM does not include OLE, therefore COM is not OLE renamed, though you could say it's a subset of OLE renamed.
And no, ActiveX, DirectX, and COM+, nor OLEDB (despite it's name) have nothing to do with OLE, other than they use COM. OLE refers specifically to those bits surrounding Automation, Linking and Embedding, Compound Documents, etc.., none of that exists in other technologies based on COM.
Actually, .NET is far closer to SOM than COM is. One of the advantages of SOM was that it was, in essence, a runtime object system, so you could "inject" new methods into objects if you wanted (kind of like how smalltalk works). .NET allows just that sort of thing as well (though it's not widely known) through a process called Reflection for runtime discovory of objects, and you're allowed to modify objects on the fly.
.NET aren't exactly the same (and .NET is a lot more than that, including sandboxing, a virtual machine, etc..).
No, SOM and
or how many times they change the name of OLE
This sort of response is typical of those that don't really understand the Microsoft stack.
COM is not OLE renamed. COM is the basic transport structure that OLE, and other MS technologies, are based on. OLE is the name of a specific set of COM interfaces involving such things as Compound Documents, Automation, In-place activation, etc.. OLE also describes a lot of things that don't technically involve COM.
Other examples include ActiveX, DirectX, COM+ (despite it's name, it's not a new version of COM, it's just a specific set of interfaces like the others I mention), OLEDB, etc..
So, in the sense that both COM and SOM are the transport layers of the technology, they are roughly equal, even if their implementations are very different. Other technologies get built on these layers.
That's a bit disingenuous. Nowhere in the stadards does it require anyone to cache the DTD's either.
If you ask me, the W3 asked for this. They didn't consider the consequences, and now that they're under siege, they want to blame everyone else.
No, they're saying they won't bring a lawsuit for any version in which they participate in it's development unless you do it first. They don't promise not to sue if OASIS develops a version without their participation.
However, OASIS rules are not legally binding. Patents are. Sun's license explicitly covenants version 1.0, but then limits it's coverage for further revisions to revisions in which they participate. So Sun leaves OASIS, their non-legally binding rule says they can't withdraw from their obligations, but what consequences would there be if they did? Maybe OASIS could sue them, but I don't see that happening.
The problem with the IPR covenant is that Sun explicitly only limits their covenant not to sue to specific versions. If, as you say, they're required to provide such coverage in perpetude, why would they say differently in their document? Why the need to include version specific language?
A newton isn't an iPod. Nor does it have 32GB of storage. It would be nice to have an SDK and the ability to do that, but so far no...
Here's your excuse. No pen input.
That means you can't take notes, or draw things. No handwriting recognition, etc..
I was all set to buy an iPod Touch until I realized that this simple class of productivity app just wasn't included or even really capable of being used. Theoretically, they could use a tap-pad interface to enter notes, but that's clumsy and doesn't allow for free-form entry.
Good job Apple on the 32GB, now how about making it just a tad more useful.
Well, if Sun doesn't participate in the OASIS process, Sun gets no say in what OASIS does with the spec. So saying that Sun would have control is simply wrong. If anything, Sun not participating means Sun would have no control over what OASIS does with the spec.
That ignores the fact that ODF 2 would no longer enjoy patent immunity from Sun, as such, ODF would no longer be eligible for ISO approval, and anyone using anything with ODF2 could open themselves up to a patent lawsuit, which Sun hasn't been afraid to include in it's bag of tricks in the past.
One of the problems I have with the whole MS Office file design is that it includes both data and executables in the same file.
1998 called and wants it's argument back. There hasn't been such a thing as a macro virus in almost 10 years. Your argument is way out of date.
What there HAS been is exploitation of buffer overflows in document parsers. This doesn't require Macros to function. It's just a specially crafted document that exploits the flaws by dumping part of the document structure into memory and tricking the computer into executing it, and this is nothign that's unique to Microsoft or Windows or even the PC.
The fact of the matter is, Macro's are ubiquitious and users will kick and scream if you try to take them away. They're also safe, because sandboxing and access controls have made them difficult ot exploit in the last 10 years.
While I'm certain that Microsoft didn't invent it either, You are definitely mistaken about ARexx. ARexx didn't show up until 1987, and Windows had DDE at about the same time, though ARexx was definitely more powerful.
I too was an Amigahead in those days, but come on... not everything was invented by for the Amiga.
The part you're missing is that if any given voter can verify their vote, that means the votes can be audited. Each vote is stored, not just a running total. Each vote can be verified by the person that voted, and if they can't verify their vote, it's a red flag. If the running total doesn't match the actual votes cast, then that's a red flag. What's more, the process of printing out the vote card can just as easily print out a paper ballot that can be dropped into a box by the voter (and the paper ballot has the has on it to match it up to the electronic vote) for hand counting if neccessary (though it wouldn't really be necessary except in cases where someone simply refuses to trust the system).
I don't quite understand your point. You don't have to reveal who you voted for unless you want to, and someone can be coerced just as easily without such means. One can also prove how they voted by using a cell phone with a built-in camera to take a picture of their ballot.
There's no way to have traceability and anonymisation
That's not true. It just has to trace to a non-identifiable source. For instance, let's say you vote for Obama, when you vote you're issued a vote id, that ID is then hashed with some data you enter, sort of like a password and stored as the "real" voteid. That original (pre-hashed) code is then printed out on a voteid card to the voter. At any time after the election, they can go on the internet (even at a coffee shop or something if they want anonyminity) and enter the code and their password, and it will then print out the valid vote result, verifying that the vote was properly registered and counted.
I disagree. Remember, Bush stole the 2000 election largely because of paper ballots. The electronic voting was a compelling solution to the problems that lead to the 2000 voting irregularities. The problem was that the fox controlled the henhouse, and put his own foxes in charge.
Electronic voting has many other compelling benefits. As the number of voters grows, it takes longer and longer for the results to be tabulated, and shortcuts get taken to make the process faster (such as sampling balots to verify accuracy, which doesn't work if the ballots have been "pre-sorted" as we've seen).
Open Source is not the answer either, because Open Source does not guarantee that the actual code audited is the actual code used. The problem is one of process and auditability. If you have a solid process and unbreakable auditability, it doesn't matter who makes the voting machines, or whether they are open or closed source. If the input and output is verifiable, it's trustworthy. This includes hard copy audit trails that are voter verifiable (ie, they can see that the paper ballot printed equals what they entered into the system).
Hasannudin Saidin, the guy behind the Open Malaysia blog is IBM employee as well, but he doesn't come out and say it ANYWHERE on his blog. A google cache of a talk he gave on ODF reveals his real email address. hasan@my.ibm.com
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:Bhb_oAHMDFYJ:hasansaidin.typepad.com/openmalaysia/MNCC_Evening_Talk_on_ODF.odp+Hasannudin+Saidin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6
So that makes Rob Weir, Bob Sutor, and Hasannudin Saidin as IBM employees who regularly blog against OOXML, of those only Bob Sutor openly identifies himself as an IBM employee. Andy Updegrove is the lawyer for OASIS (a fact he also buries on his blog). Rob has it buried in his "about", but Hasan doesn't do it at all.
Strange that IBM pays so many people to campaign against OOXML, is it not?
I think the problem is really more of a mindshare one. By the time Microsoft got serious about search, Google and Yahoo were already the number 1 and 2 search providers, with established entities like Alta Vista, Exite, etc.. dropping like flies because they couldn't keep up with the search results.
When you're using a product that works for all your needs, there is seldom a reason to move to another one. This is why Windows stays so far ahead of the game. People are happy with Google or Yahoo, and no matter what Microsoft does, no matter how good they could be, they won't get people off their muscle memory.
Look at Ask.com, by all accounts, they have a much better user interface, natural language processer, advertising, etc.. but they just can't seem to get any real customers.
Microsoft did not buy Word. They hired Charles Simonyi from XEROX PARC, who had developed word processors in the past. Word was written entirely from scratch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_word
According to this article:
http://www.betanews.com/article/1079773789
Microsoft bought Webcorp in 1993, Windows for Workgroups was first released in October of 1992 according to this document http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126746 from MS. WfWG was in development for more than a year before they bought Webcorp and was released at least several months before.
What's more, WfWG was not just an add-on for Windows. It was really the entire basis of Windows 95. It introduced the VMM model that Windows 95 was basically entirely based on. Also, the networking stack of WfWG was the same stack that was built into NT, which they had licensed from Spider Software and was based on a licensed version of the BSD stack (predating the first open source release of BSD) and STREAMS technology.
Read it again. Why is it that nearly everybody seems to miss this when they read it? I've pointed out to several people in this thread so far, i've even bolded the text.
Ahh.. but that's just it. ODF proponents do not hold Sun and OASIS to the same.. ahem.. standard (pardon the pun) as they hold Microsoft. They gloss over the problems with ODF while nitpick OOXML to death.
You don't see a problem with that?
If Sun do wish to cease participating in future versions of ODF, then they can use their patents against implementors of those future versions. It's not clear to me whether this means only against any new features introduced - I assume this must be the case, but IANAL.
Well, that's just it. The way it's written, Sun only promises not to sue a specific VERSION, not features. So it seems pretty clear that any version that Sun does not participate in has no coverage.
What part of "or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation" don't you understand?
It says, quite explicitly, that Sun irrevocably covenants that they won't sue for the 1.0 version (note that it's now up to 1.2) or any subsquent version that Sun participates in. Which means, if Sun doesn't participate (ie leaves the group) then they no longer covenant not to sue any new version that is created.
Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation
I've bolded the part that states that Sun only covenants versions in which it participates.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't have a blog, and Slashdot is the only place i've ever talked about OOXML.
Maybe you assume that two people using the same argument must be the same person. If that's the case, then wow. Rob Weir really gets around. By the way, i've attempted to respond to blogs like Rob Weir's, but he moderates his blog and only allows comments he agrees with to be posted. This gives the impression that he's got unanimous agreement.
I prefer to discuss OOXML here where there's at least some possibility of both sides being represented.