Don't be so quick to condemn Sun. Open sourcing a gigantic project like Java takes time, especially since they don't own much of the code and needed to establish a governance model.
*Sigh* I'm already boycotting Microsoft (Mac user), Sony (rootkit), and Wal-Mart. Now I have to add another company to the list. What sucks is that they own futureshop.ca, where I go to buy a lot of electronics, video games, etc. I can't do business with either anymore.
Thunderbird is by far the best mail client for Windows, and from my limited experience the best email client for Linux (though I haven't used Linux much recently). Mail.app (the Mac mail program) runs circles around Thunderbird and any other mail client I've ever used.
Thunderbird has been moving in the general direction of parity with Mail.app, but it isn't there yet. Mail.app still wins handily for its superior preferences menu layout which includes account info and mail filters all in one place. It's also integrated with the OS X address book and spell-checking dictionary. Once Leopard comes out, Mail.app will be integrated with the system-wide calendar process (another new Leopard feature).
And before anybody calls me a Mac fanboy, I still have a strong preference for Firefox over Safari. Safari is so light on features, especially those I take for granted with Firefox, that it's simply not usable (although Firefox should steal a feature or two from Safari to be even better).
I realize I'm late to the party, and probably won't get modded one way or the other.
emusic could be that broker. They already offer a catalogue of, what, 2 million songs from tons of independent labels? That would be more than enough to supply a number of internet radio stations.
Hopefully, the CEO of emusic has his wits about him and decides to do this.
Paragraph 1 of the Verizon terms state plainly that the Unlimited plain means unlimited bandwidth for a particular small set of uses:
Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose.
Verizon is bastardizing the English language in their service agreement, and the courts should take note of this.
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade. 2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies. 3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
Open Office is working on a native (as opposed to X11) version of OpenOffice for OS X, but according to the latest project plan, the final release won't be out until the end of the year:
Yeah, openoffice is a bloated monstrosity, especially if all you need it for is simple tasks, like composing a reasonably well-formatted document or a simple spreadsheet.
I'd try KOffice or the GNOME office apps, but they don't run natively on OS X yet. GTK+ and Qt apps are supposed to run natively (not X11) on OS X, but they're not there yet.
In the meantime, I have to fire up OpenOffice or NeoOffice just to use a very basic spreadsheet. ARRRGH!
I don't for the life of me understand why they haven't passed a law banning driving while talking on a cell phone (either hands-on or hands-off).
I live downtown and walk to work everyday, and I constantly see drivers talking on their cellphones, often obstructing a good part of one side of their vision, navigating and turning on tight street corners. I mean, this isn't the freeway or some flat road. This is right in the middle of downtown traffic!
Also, I saw a documentary on a study on that the mere act of concentrating on an outside conversation while driving, where the other party to the conversation is unaware of the driving. The driver would wear a headset, and would be more or less pestered with questions from the outside party. In comparison with the control group (driving without conversing), their driving was far worse, and they registered a disturbing number of simulated accidents.
It makes me sick that somebody supposedly "controlling" two tons of steel and plastic, effectively a fatal weapon if used improperly, is so crass, brazen, irrespesponsible, inconsiderate and utterly reckless as to neglect devoting 100% of their concentration on ensuring they maintain command of their vehicle.
It's not enough to ban hand-held cell phones. All manner of outside conversations must be banned for drivers of cars.
Granted, I almost got run over by a driven who was having an animated conversation with his passengers *while driving*, so it's impossible to legislate away all forms of human stupidity.
First of all, I am a Canadian, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance.
When it comes to standing up to Americans, we're all bark and no bite. After all, we accepted the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. We allowed Chapter 11 of NAFTA to get passed, a provision allowing corporations to sue Canadian governments for any laws that caused them to lose profits. Now would we allow a NAFTA provision that required Canada to price oil and gas the same as in the U.S., and to supply oil to the U.S. before ourselves, buying back the value-added refined product in the form of petroleum, and then committing to supply the U.S. first even in the event of an energy crisis. We allowed American companies to engage in massive numbers of takeovers of Canadian companies when the Canadian dollar was low, especially our oil companies, to the point that a substantially larger number of Canadians work for American owned companies than ever before. We allowed the federal government to outsource government data on Canadian citizens to U.S. companies operating on U.S. This has made our data subject to the U.S. "Patriot Act".
Countries whose citizens are truly negative toward the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, like Russia, wouldn't tolerate any of the above policies.
Sorry, but when it comes to standing up to the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, we're a bunch of weenies.
Wouldn't you think that IBM, HP, and other large Linux server sellers would be a little annoyed at Microsoft shaking down their customers? The more their customers get shaken down, the less like IBM and all would get repeat business, right?
I would think that IBM could charge Microsoft with Racketeering (which is essentially what MS is doing) on behalf of their Linux customers.
Maybe the average corporation doesn't have the clout to stand up to Microsoft, but IBM does.
(Note: I'm not really a big IBM fan. I'm just pointing out that Microsoft isn't infallible).
First off, you might want to look "non sequitur" up in a dictionary.
Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
This is exactly what I meant to say. To argue that the Zune's lock-in isn't as bad as Apple's because it has a 2% market share would be to invoke a non sequitur, or to "not follow" the argument, as is the literal translation of the Latin phrase non sequitur to English.
As for the hiprocisy, Norway's policy initiative singled out iTunes. They did not pass a law defining what file formats were unfair. They did not define what constituted "unfair" DRM in an impartial way. Laws are supposed to apply to all people and companies equally.
So what Norwegian law or regulation did Apple violate? And how come Microsoft wasn't found to have violated that law or regulation as well?
In terms of monopolistic tactics, I think noone on Slashdot will argue that Microsoft has historically been a far more egregious offender than Apple.
So again, I ask you, why did Norway single out Apple? The only reason I can think of is hypocrisy.
OK... Apple uses a locked proprietary file format that only runs on their hardware, so that's why their DRM is wrong. Fine.
Microsoft has proprietary file formats (.doc,.xls.,wma) that run only on their software (Word, Excel, Windows Media Player). If it weren't for the Mac versions of MS Office and Windows Media Player, they would only run on one operating system. Zune Music Store DRM files run only with one software (Windows Media Player) on one operating system (Windows), and one set of hardware (Zune music players).
If Norway bans iTunes, but not MS Office, Windows Media Player, and the Zune Music Store, then they're goddamn hypocrites, pure and simple. The fact that the Zune has 2% of the market is a non sequitur.
Apple "forces" hardware upgrades to keep music?!?
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 1
...or force them to buy their hardware upgrade from the same company so they don't lose their music library. (emphasis mine).
First of all, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Hula died not because of Microsoft. I know the jury's still out as to whether Microsoft had the project killed, but please bear with me.
Is it possible that open-source projects aimed at emulating Exchange functionality fail because of lack of developer interest?
Think about it. Open-source projects are fun for developers because they get to do help write new and exciting programs that they actually use. Keeping this in mind, is it possible that working on an Exchange competitor is simply too boring, too mundane, and too mechanical to interest l337 h8X0R5?
I'm betting that Exchange succeeded because Microsoft was paying to pay good developers lots of money to work on Exchange. This was probably a project that was really boring, mundane and mechanical work they would have absolutely never done had they not been paid generously for it.
People like me are signing up to legal paid mp3 download services like emusic.com . Other people signed up to allofmp3.com to pay for non-DRM'd music. The message these two developments is sending to the big record labels, a message that's starting to get through their thick skulls, is that DRM doesn't work and that it's actually counter-productive from the point of view of their business.
DRM does have one unchallenged beneficiary, though: The software companies that sell DRM "solutions" to fictitious problems.
Enter Microsoft. Redmond sees the writing on the wall for their DRM business, and will do anything to head it off at the pass. The tactic du jour seems to be to keep repeating ad neuseum to big record company execs that any music consumer that listens to mp3 files is "stealing" their music. This, in turn, is meant to re-enforce the message that DRM is essential to "prevent theft". It's a fallacy of such monumental proportions that I can't even qualify it as specious.
So, it breaks down like this: DRM is bad for everybody (record labels included). Open music formats like mp3 and ogg are good for both record companies and customers alike because it means more sales for record companies and more music in the format their customers want. Open formats are bad for Microsoft because the more music in open formats are sold, the more the "problem" of "theft" becomes a non-existant red herring. Microsoft loses business selling solutions to problems that are proven to be non-existant.
If the Jessica Simpson mp3 track sale is any indication, the record companies are coming around and the end is in sight for Microsoft DRM. Microsoft is trying to delay the inevitable.
"Hobbled"? It's obvious you're talking out of your ass.
Do you have any evidence that Apple is using TPM to restrict your rights on new Intel Macs? No, of course you don't.
I own an Intel Mac and it doesn't prevent me from doing any of the things I was doing before.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple adopted the TPM module because they want to prevent people from running OS X on commodity hardware. That was the override and exclusive motivation behind the move. Unless you have strong evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that's the true nature of Apple's motivation.
First of all, whether or not Sun goes through the EMCA has nothing to do with their track record on open sourcing stuff. That's a non sequitur.
Secondly, Sun largely (but not exclusively) maintaining control over Java means that they can continue to innovate with some measure of centralized control. Look what happened to JavaScript when it got EMCA'd.
Third, Sun has done absolutely nothing to prevent the FSF and the Apache foundation from working on their own open source Java implementations.
Fourth, Sun has invited a wide range of stakeholders into the JCP, including the Apache Foundation.
I can't believe how many IBM trolls are in this thread (and Slashdot as a whole) decrying Sun's lack of a track record in open sourcing their stuff.
Have they ever heard of NFS? OpenOffice? OpenSolaris?
Is there something wrong with the CDDL that's not wrong with the Mozilla license? From what I understand, the CDDL is similar to the Mozilla license but simpler. I invite every single one of those armchair critics to stop using Firefox if they're so adamant.
Unlike IBM (with the exception of Eclipse), Sun actually *open sources* stuff. I invite those IBM trolls to push their corporate master to open source WebSphere, DB2, Rational Rose, or Lotus Notes.
They might mod me down troll/redundant, etc, but what the hell!
I ran a Windows/Linux machine and switched to Mac a year and a half ago. Since then, I've never looked back. Specifically, I don't have to deal with a company that has contempt for me and treats me like a criminal. Since OS X will only run on Macs, Apple doesn't have to worry about piracy, license keys, etc. What's more, I can run several Linux distros within the Parallels emulation software.
The only thing that sucks is I'd like to run my old games, but that would require Boot Camp, and with XP I need to register online. If I run Windows, I want to do so offline, full stop.
...I would actively support any national party whose main policy plank is to separate my country from the European Union.
So, for example, were I British, I would support the Referendum Party (if they still exist).
Maybe European politicians didn't get the message that France and other countries sent by wholeheartedly voting "NO" in the EU consistitution referenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be so quick to condemn Sun. Open sourcing a gigantic project like Java takes time, especially since they don't own much of the code and needed to establish a governance model.
You got the wrong link.
This is the correct one:
http://openjdk.java.net/
I'm not sure why Sun didn't fix the other link, though, because it's clearly out of date.
*Sigh* I'm already boycotting Microsoft (Mac user), Sony (rootkit), and Wal-Mart. Now I have to add another company to the list. What sucks is that they own futureshop.ca, where I go to buy a lot of electronics, video games, etc. I can't do business with either anymore.
Thunderbird is by far the best mail client for Windows, and from my limited experience the best email client for Linux (though I haven't used Linux much recently). Mail.app (the Mac mail program) runs circles around Thunderbird and any other mail client I've ever used.
Thunderbird has been moving in the general direction of parity with Mail.app, but it isn't there yet. Mail.app still wins handily for its superior preferences menu layout which includes account info and mail filters all in one place. It's also integrated with the OS X address book and spell-checking dictionary. Once Leopard comes out, Mail.app will be integrated with the system-wide calendar process (another new Leopard feature).
And before anybody calls me a Mac fanboy, I still have a strong preference for Firefox over Safari. Safari is so light on features, especially those I take for granted with Firefox, that it's simply not usable (although Firefox should steal a feature or two from Safari to be even better).
I realize I'm late to the party, and probably won't get modded one way or the other.
emusic could be that broker. They already offer a catalogue of, what, 2 million songs from tons of independent labels? That would be more than enough to supply a number of internet radio stations.
Hopefully, the CEO of emusic has his wits about him and decides to do this.
Paragraph 1 of the Verizon terms state plainly that the Unlimited plain means unlimited bandwidth for a particular small set of uses:
Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose.
Verizon is bastardizing the English language in their service agreement, and the courts should take note of this.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unlimite
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
Emphasis mine.
Open Office is working on a native (as opposed to X11) version of OpenOffice for OS X, but according to the latest project plan, the final release won't be out until the end of the year:
l oad
http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/news/index.html
In the meantime, Neooffice is a decent option, considering that the project is only maintained by two people, and part-time at that:
http://neooffice.org/neojava/en/download.php#down
Yeah, openoffice is a bloated monstrosity, especially if all you need it for is simple tasks, like composing a reasonably well-formatted document or a simple spreadsheet.
I'd try KOffice or the GNOME office apps, but they don't run natively on OS X yet. GTK+ and Qt apps are supposed to run natively (not X11) on OS X, but they're not there yet.
In the meantime, I have to fire up OpenOffice or NeoOffice just to use a very basic spreadsheet. ARRRGH!
(rolls eyes) So that's why I should put down some cash for Norton Anti-Virus for Mac, right?
I don't for the life of me understand why they haven't passed a law banning driving while talking on a cell phone (either hands-on or hands-off).
I live downtown and walk to work everyday, and I constantly see drivers talking on their cellphones, often obstructing a good part of one side of their vision, navigating and turning on tight street corners. I mean, this isn't the freeway or some flat road. This is right in the middle of downtown traffic!
Also, I saw a documentary on a study on that the mere act of concentrating on an outside conversation while driving, where the other party to the conversation is unaware of the driving. The driver would wear a headset, and would be more or less pestered with questions from the outside party. In comparison with the control group (driving without conversing), their driving was far worse, and they registered a disturbing number of simulated accidents.
It makes me sick that somebody supposedly "controlling" two tons of steel and plastic, effectively a fatal weapon if used improperly, is so crass, brazen, irrespesponsible, inconsiderate and utterly reckless as to neglect devoting 100% of their concentration on ensuring they maintain command of their vehicle.
It's not enough to ban hand-held cell phones. All manner of outside conversations must be banned for drivers of cars.
Granted, I almost got run over by a driven who was having an animated conversation with his passengers *while driving*, so it's impossible to legislate away all forms of human stupidity.
First of all, I am a Canadian, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance.
When it comes to standing up to Americans, we're all bark and no bite. After all, we accepted the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. We allowed Chapter 11 of NAFTA to get passed, a provision allowing corporations to sue Canadian governments for any laws that caused them to lose profits. Now would we allow a NAFTA provision that required Canada to price oil and gas the same as in the U.S., and to supply oil to the U.S. before ourselves, buying back the value-added refined product in the form of petroleum, and then committing to supply the U.S. first even in the event of an energy crisis. We allowed American companies to engage in massive numbers of takeovers of Canadian companies when the Canadian dollar was low, especially our oil companies, to the point that a substantially larger number of Canadians work for American owned companies than ever before. We allowed the federal government to outsource government data on Canadian citizens to U.S. companies operating on U.S. This has made our data subject to the U.S. "Patriot Act".
Countries whose citizens are truly negative toward the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, like Russia, wouldn't tolerate any of the above policies.
Sorry, but when it comes to standing up to the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, we're a bunch of weenies.
They don't. "Unauthorized copying" is legal for personal use in Canada.
Do you really believe this will be the case for that much longer? With the Tories in charge, I don't.
How do I contact the organizations making these proposals? I want to give them a piece of my mind, namely to tell them they can't have it both ways:
1) Make unauthorized copying illegal.
2) Charge me for it.
Do they want a compulsory licensing scheme, as has been proposed by The Register, or do they want people to pay for each copy of music they purchase.
They should make up their damn minds, because they can't have their cake and eat it too.
Wouldn't you think that IBM, HP, and other large Linux server sellers would be a little annoyed at Microsoft shaking down their customers? The more their customers get shaken down, the less like IBM and all would get repeat business, right?
I would think that IBM could charge Microsoft with Racketeering (which is essentially what MS is doing) on behalf of their Linux customers.
Maybe the average corporation doesn't have the clout to stand up to Microsoft, but IBM does.
(Note: I'm not really a big IBM fan. I'm just pointing out that Microsoft isn't infallible).
Why don't you try it before you criticize it? You don't have to buy one. Just try it in a store.
First off, you might want to look "non sequitur" up in a dictionary.
Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
This is exactly what I meant to say. To argue that the Zune's lock-in isn't as bad as Apple's because it has a 2% market share would be to invoke a non sequitur, or to "not follow" the argument, as is the literal translation of the Latin phrase non sequitur to English.
As for the hiprocisy, Norway's policy initiative singled out iTunes. They did not pass a law defining what file formats were unfair. They did not define what constituted "unfair" DRM in an impartial way. Laws are supposed to apply to all people and companies equally.
So what Norwegian law or regulation did Apple violate? And how come Microsoft wasn't found to have violated that law or regulation as well?
In terms of monopolistic tactics, I think noone on Slashdot will argue that Microsoft has historically been a far more egregious offender than Apple.
So again, I ask you, why did Norway single out Apple? The only reason I can think of is hypocrisy.
OK... Apple uses a locked proprietary file format that only runs on their hardware, so that's why their DRM is wrong. Fine.
.xls. ,wma) that run only on their software (Word, Excel, Windows Media Player). If it weren't for the Mac versions of MS Office and Windows Media Player, they would only run on one operating system. Zune Music Store DRM files run only with one software (Windows Media Player) on one operating system (Windows), and one set of hardware (Zune music players).
Microsoft has proprietary file formats (.doc,
If Norway bans iTunes, but not MS Office, Windows Media Player, and the Zune Music Store, then they're goddamn hypocrites, pure and simple. The fact that the Zune has 2% of the market is a non sequitur.
...or force them to buy their hardware upgrade from the same company so they don't lose their music library. (emphasis mine).
Please explain to all of us how apple does this?
I'm not trolling. Please hear me out.
First of all, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Hula died not because of Microsoft. I know the jury's still out as to whether Microsoft had the project killed, but please bear with me.
Is it possible that open-source projects aimed at emulating Exchange functionality fail because of lack of developer interest?
Think about it. Open-source projects are fun for developers because they get to do help write new and exciting programs that they actually use. Keeping this in mind, is it possible that working on an Exchange competitor is simply too boring, too mundane, and too mechanical to interest l337 h8X0R5?
I'm betting that Exchange succeeded because Microsoft was paying to pay good developers lots of money to work on Exchange. This was probably a project that was really boring, mundane and mechanical work they would have absolutely never done had they not been paid generously for it.
In a recent inteview with the Register, Peter Jenner declared that DRM is dead because it runs counter to the interests of record companies:
n er/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jen
People like me are signing up to legal paid mp3 download services like emusic.com . Other people signed up to allofmp3.com to pay for non-DRM'd music. The message these two developments is sending to the big record labels, a message that's starting to get through their thick skulls, is that DRM doesn't work and that it's actually counter-productive from the point of view of their business.
DRM does have one unchallenged beneficiary, though: The software companies that sell DRM "solutions" to fictitious problems.
Enter Microsoft. Redmond sees the writing on the wall for their DRM business, and will do anything to head it off at the pass. The tactic du jour seems to be to keep repeating ad neuseum to big record company execs that any music consumer that listens to mp3 files is "stealing" their music. This, in turn, is meant to re-enforce the message that DRM is essential to "prevent theft". It's a fallacy of such monumental proportions that I can't even qualify it as specious.
So, it breaks down like this: DRM is bad for everybody (record labels included). Open music formats like mp3 and ogg are good for both record companies and customers alike because it means more sales for record companies and more music in the format their customers want. Open formats are bad for Microsoft because the more music in open formats are sold, the more the "problem" of "theft" becomes a non-existant red herring. Microsoft loses business selling solutions to problems that are proven to be non-existant.
If the Jessica Simpson mp3 track sale is any indication, the record companies are coming around and the end is in sight for Microsoft DRM. Microsoft is trying to delay the inevitable.
"Hobbled"? It's obvious you're talking out of your ass.
Do you have any evidence that Apple is using TPM to restrict your rights on new Intel Macs? No, of course you don't.
I own an Intel Mac and it doesn't prevent me from doing any of the things I was doing before.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple adopted the TPM module because they want to prevent people from running OS X on commodity hardware. That was the override and exclusive motivation behind the move. Unless you have strong evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that's the true nature of Apple's motivation.
First of all, whether or not Sun goes through the EMCA has nothing to do with their track record on open sourcing stuff. That's a non sequitur.
Secondly, Sun largely (but not exclusively) maintaining control over Java means that they can continue to innovate with some measure of centralized control. Look what happened to JavaScript when it got EMCA'd.
Third, Sun has done absolutely nothing to prevent the FSF and the Apache foundation from working on their own open source Java implementations.
Fourth, Sun has invited a wide range of stakeholders into the JCP, including the Apache Foundation.
So what's the problem here?
I can't believe how many IBM trolls are in this thread (and Slashdot as a whole) decrying Sun's lack of a track record in open sourcing their stuff.
Have they ever heard of NFS? OpenOffice? OpenSolaris?
Is there something wrong with the CDDL that's not wrong with the Mozilla license? From what I understand, the CDDL is similar to the Mozilla license but simpler. I invite every single one of those armchair critics to stop using Firefox if they're so adamant.
Unlike IBM (with the exception of Eclipse), Sun actually *open sources* stuff. I invite those IBM trolls to push their corporate master to open source WebSphere, DB2, Rational Rose, or Lotus Notes.
They might mod me down troll/redundant, etc, but what the hell!
I ran a Windows/Linux machine and switched to Mac a year and a half ago. Since then, I've never looked back. Specifically, I don't have to deal with a company that has contempt for me and treats me like a criminal. Since OS X will only run on Macs, Apple doesn't have to worry about piracy, license keys, etc. What's more, I can run several Linux distros within the Parallels emulation software.
The only thing that sucks is I'd like to run my old games, but that would require Boot Camp, and with XP I need to register online. If I run Windows, I want to do so offline, full stop.
Doesn't this violate the WTO judgement deeming such laws as blatantly protectionist?
I'm not addressing the moral issue, merely the legal one.
...I would actively support any national party whose main policy plank is to separate my country from the European Union.
So, for example, were I British, I would support the Referendum Party (if they still exist).
Maybe European politicians didn't get the message that France and other countries sent by wholeheartedly voting "NO" in the EU consistitution referenda.