Interesting indeed..... This is now Apple Mac's typical user. My father who has been an apple Mac zealot since 1982 (when he got his first Apple Mac) has switched over to Windows for almost the exact same reasons as this person as switched over to Apple. He's not interested in development tools or unix whatso-ever. He disliked OS-X so much that he switched to the operating system he has loved to hate for over 15 years...Windows.
And this is the thing... Apple has dumped a large portion of its traditional client base, their most loyal customers, in favour of highly computer literate IT professionals and computer enthusiasts. Apple's scorned traditional client base is not going to forgive them any time soon, cause they really hate change, and whilst the change from MAC OS to windows is painful, it's no where near as painful as going from MAC OS to OS-X.
I don't think Microsoft will be crying over this for one second, as these people that were Apple's bread and butter are now Microsofts bread and butter, and Apple's new clientele are about as fickle as a cat on lsd. They'll abandon Apple on a drop of a hat in favour of the next cool geeky toy that happens to be around the next time they're due to purchase a new PC, maybe it'll be OS-X, maybe it'll be Linux or just maybe it'll be Microsoft's Vista OS with it's hot new 3D rendered desktop.
I think I'll wait until the entire thing comes out on one single disc or cube or whatever it is data will be floating around on 5-10 years from now.
Consumers are smart. They know this data isn't going anywhere, it'll be around for as long as they are (and then some). They'll hold out for as long as it takes to get a decent price before forking out any cash. Personally I don't think I'd consider paying much more than about $500 for this.
Hollywood needs to provide better and cheapers ways of providing its content to consumers, if they don't they'll end up going the same way as the Music Industry. Whilst they don't immediately face the threat the music industry does (dvd quality video with 5.1 sound doesn't come down the wire that quick) eventually they will face it. Hopefully by that time (for their own sake) they'll think my offer is quite generous.
Really? I thought the US was founded with the ideals of liberty and democracy.
Yea but that's America's history, most of which americans don't even know or understand.
Excusing evil and corruption by claiming others are *really* the cause is a bit... silly. It's like ripping off your neighbor because there are no cops around, and other people robbed your neighbor last year anyway, so if you didn't do it, somebody *else* would.
There has never been any corruption in the formation of Microsoft, they pioneered a business in which legalities were grey even to the best lawyers, litigation is unavoidable when you're a market leader in technology. If you think Bill Gates and Microsoft are evil then you simply are clueless...
Try comparing Bill and Microsoft's tactics to the likes of the Carlyle Group, profiteering off death, or pharmaceutical companies which market and research addictions not cures.
My point is there are alot of people who are generating wealth using tactics far more evil than Bill has ever employed. I really don't think they are all that bad and their overall impact on society has been extremely positive. Do you really think if it were up to Apple and IBM that these systems would be as affordable and available as they are today ? The answer of course is no and Microsoft's existance is proof of it.
"Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana
You see the thing about Bill Gates and how he made his money... It's just business, everyone does it, it's what the US society is based on (like it or not). If you're going to have a whinge about Bill and his business tactics you're really having a whinge at reality. You can't blame Bill for the state of the american corporate system. It's the politicians and law makers who have over time have continuously slipped further and further into a state of institutionalised corruption. Business is not a pretty game, you do not survive for long unless you're prepared to do whatever it is you have to do to win. And unlike Dick and George W., Bill hasn't killed anyone to generate wealth for himself.
Maybe they should use DDT and Bill Gates can then donate his money to research into preventing cancer and birth defects that would result from this well known highly toxic substance ending up in the people it was suppose to protect.
This chemical has been banned everywhere where people have an ounce of sense. Using highly toxic substances to eliminate mosquito's is not a solution. The arguments in this article that there's no conclusive proof that DDT causes cancer is pretty much the same tripe used to validate smoking cigarettes. They will wait a generation or two before discovering the costs of spraying DDT inside houses. This is a gamble, with a short term payoff, and a very probable long term cost that may prove to be far more worse than malaria itself.
This is +5 stupidity, not +5 interesting.
I guess there's just not that many ways to spin this one against Bill. God forbid you'd actually commend him.
The cost of software is not important. It's all about delivering access to information to people who need it the most, the poorly educated, computer illiterate, and the isolated. It doesn't matter how free or cheap software is, if people can't work out how to use it and support is unavailable to them, it will fail to deliver on providing access to information. Unusuable free software may as well be worth a million USD, as the end effect is the same.
I'm not saying all Open Source software is unusuable, but lets face it, there's alot usability and support issues with free software.
If you actually read the article you'll see that its talking about Microsoft's charity work in africa, providing computers, MS Software, support and training to African organisations and schools. The cynics will see this as Microsoft hooking these people into their proprietry systems bla bla bla. Just say its true and these people do get hooked, and through information technology they also become educated, entrepreneurial, and one day generate wealth within their community adequet enough to buy M$ software....
In some ways wouldn't that be a good thing ? ie if the average person in Africa could afford Microsoft software ?
It goes on about all the other non-profit activities Mr Gates does and the multitude of reasons people come up with for why he's doing it.
Basically the guy is still pretty young.... a spritely 50 in a couple of weeks, and for many years now he has been one of the (if not the) greatest philanthropist in history.
I guess there's nothing the guy will ever do that could get anyone on this site modded up for saying a single positive word about anything he does or has done.
I'm definitely a windows boffin but have tinkered with Linux. My experience with both are the same, the kernel's are rock solid in both products these days and with the RIGHT device drivers. The only time you see kernel level crashes is when there are hardware issues usually as a result of buggy device drivers, or faulty hardware.
The thing I find with linux is that you invariably find hardware vendors drag their feet on the linux drivers as it's far more important to get the windows drivers to market (due to the market's size). I'm no expert but I have found unless your machine's config is pretty vanilla Linux can be really hard to work with. Rate me a troll, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I just find windows with it's hardware auto-detection and out of the box support really kicks ass over linux.
Of course these problems aren't an issue with Apple and OS X as things are shipped as one complete package ready to work. If they wanted unix, maybe they should have gone apple....
These systems are a two edged sword. The more open a system is the easier it is for malicious developers to exploit them. We could easily end up in a situation where in the name of securing systems the big players will lock out smaller players from the market by digitally controlling what applications are allowed to run on these systems. We may be on the dawn of an age where real monopoly's in computing are about to develop, where start-ups face real physical barriers that stop them from entering a market.
The scariest part about this is, consumers will probably go for these systems as they will be hassle free, safe and free of worry. The only worry consumers will have is that the content of these systems is not only controlled for their own protection but also controlled to limit what they can and can't do, for alot of people I think the costs will be outwayed by the benefits.
The license and the patents are designed to stop people from coming along taking Microsoft's schema's for office, saying thanks, and using it as a base for their own development, it in no way stops OpenOffice or any other piece of software from using them to create functionality to read and write or convert MS Office documents. So I really don't see how they limit or affect anyone's freedom of choice other than the actual vendors of office software.
Further more, my argument was never about choosing Microsoft or not, it was about an enterprise that has ALREADY chosen Microsoft, is licensed to use MS Office, been given advice that is in my mind based on a completely ficticious notion such as "Openess" to warrant a very expensive process of switching over to another vendor.
I still haven't heard a single explanation that has any merit that would give me real PRACTICAL reasons for thinking Microsoft's Office XML format is in any PRACTICAL and real way less open than OpenDocument. In actuality Office XML 2003 is more likely to have support in more packages than OpenDocument ever will.
Sure you have alot of names there... Bash Microsoft ? Sure they're all keen to give one to Microsoft.
Real support doesn't mean by name it means by implementation, what can you do with an document in the OpenDocument schema ? Answer read it in OpenOffice and maybe in a few other very obscure packages with even less market presence.
I'm familiar with GPL licensing and it is quite restrictive if you're in a private enterprise. Microsoft has made numerous statements about the Office XML schema license agreements and patents and have publicly assured people it is in their belief the license is open enough to be used within the majority of GPL projects.
But again this is really a matter of choosing sides not based on technical or legal arguments but based on whether u want to sock it to Microsoft or not. Me I wouldn't advise any company that is currently licensed to use MS Office to dump office and migrate all their documents to something else purely because I think it'd be a waste of time and money. If they want their documents to be in an open format that can easily be read by other systems I would recommend they save documents in XML.
If I was asked to give advice to a new company on a shoe string budget with a need for an office package I may steer them towards Open Office.
The terms of this agreement basically say you have the right to distribute use these schema's in any software system to READ AND WRITE Office documents ROYALTY FREE, so long as you give Microsoft credit and the real clincher is... you don't extend it.
Let's quit the emotional BS and talk tin tacs... how much input do you think the guys at OpenOffice have on the OASIS standards when it comes to the evolution of the OpenDocument format ?
A) 10%
B) 20%
C) 90%
or
D) Complete Control
Considering OpenOffice is really the only software with any footprint at all in the market place using this schema, I'm betting right now and for the immediate future it's bound to be C or but really probably D. I also think you have to be completely naive to think the OpenDocument schema comes with no strings attached, it also comes with license agreements that you have to adhere to so basically what we have really is two groups competing with each other. There's nothing wrong with that.
Microsoft invented the embrace, extend, extinguish doctrine, they're not about to let anyone use their own tactics against them. Allowing someone to extend their own schema would create a one way flow from MS Office to a competing product, documents written by competitors software in the extended MS Office schema would be incomplete when viewed in an MS Office application. I think it's reasonable for them to insist that documents based on their schema's be readable (in their entirety) by MS Office.
I personally haven't encountered an enterprise using OpenOffice, I don't know what its market share is but I'll guess and say not much, until it has a reasonable market share I don't blame Microsoft for not supporting it, that costs time, money and comprimises their OWN vision for their OWN product. The schema's Microsoft have provided give complete transparity to Office XML documents, they are clear, very well documented, any software product should easily be able to support them, allowing that software to freely manipulate and rewrite that data into any schema it likes.
You really don't know what you're talking about...
See my comment....
How this gets rated as +5 when it's completely factually incorrect I have no idea. I guess we shouldn't let facts get in the road of bashing Microsoft.
Uses of the current version of Office already have the option of saving in XML data formats. However it's currently not the default but it is very simple to configure office applications to save in these formats by default. The next version Office 12 will save in xml by default
Don't be surprised if this ends up being a boon for Microsoft with governments upgrading to Office 2003 and/or Office 12.
Microsoft's biggest problem in this regard is that everyone is seen as an enemy, and everything is seen as a threat. If Steve Ballmer actually had a brain in his head, he might realise a couple of things:-
1) Microsoft CAN'T be everywhere at once. It isn't possible. They can't be developing new operating systems, upgrading Office, creating development software, and conquering the Web all at once.
2) Because of 1, other companies are going to be in some computer-related niche somewhere.
Microsoft and google are in direct competition with each other as they both have the same objective.
Googles mission statement is to quote their company overview page....
Windows currently runs on most household computers and in many of the worlds offices, allowing people to organise and manage their data.... Surely you can see they both have the same goal. And as you can see by Googles own words as you put it they want to be everywhere.
Why ? Because lets face it one of these guys eventually will be everywhere cause people are essentially lazy and just want systems that do for them exactly what they need them to do with the minimum amount of effort. The average consumer wants his computer to be as easy to use as a telephone and still be able to perform any task he might think it could do for him. He also doesn't really want competition, that'd mean having to think about which system is the best and checking to see if it works with all their business partners, family and friends systems. Utimately... just as in highlander "There can only be one !". And Microsoft and Google aren't the only ones who believe this to be true.
My comment was in reference to the notion of forcing application developers to apply for a trusted digital certificate to sign their applications and for the OS to deny unsigned applications or applications signed with a certificate that is not trusted the priveledge to execute.
This is exactly how Microsoft's Smartphone OS works. Apps simply won't run on a phone unless they are signed with a trusted digital certificate. The OS is basically locked down. These sorts of systems put in place the mechanism to lock out smaller developers and unwanted competition from an OS and is completely contrary to the whole notion of Open Source.
And as for my other comment about it being amateurish... it doesn't matter how/when the files were infected or exactly how official or unofficial this ftp site was, any professional organisation should be tightly controlling and reviewing the packaging and distribution of it's applications.
A system where apps have to be signed in order for the app to be deployable on an OS would make that OS a totally closed and a private shop. No developer would be allowed to develop apps for the OS unless some central body deems it in their interest.
In this case, if the story is true, it may have made no difference, as the files were on Mozilla's own FTP site. Even if the app was signed, it may be that the files were infected as they were being built. In other words if Mozilla were signing their apps, they could have been signed with Mozilla's trusted certificate and still be infected with the virus.
I think it's yet another example of how Amateurish open source development can be. It's totally unforgivable for any professional software organisation to distribute apps infected with a virus, neverlone such a major vendor.
Slashdot's moderating has really gone steeply down hill of late there's no way this should be a 5.
Hey think about it... this could actually work ! Get everyone on the planet to wear nylon jackets. Once every few hours we earth ourselves directly into the power grid. If you then made illegalised cars and made everyone ride motorbikes or push bikes think of the potential !!
Sure a few people might spontaneously combust every now and then, a couple of occasional fires.... but wouldn't that cost be worth saving the environment for ?
I once had an issue with my compaq blue screening returning out of sleep mode, I'd installed every update on compaq's website and scoured the net for a solution.
One day out of sheer desparation I decided to send the report off to Microsoft and to my surprise it came back with a link to a support website giving very obscure step by step instructions which magically resolved my problem.
I don't often get exceptions in windows where I'm at a loss for an explanation as to the cause, but in future when I do I'll definitely be posting them to Microsoft.
Amongst people who aren't MS Phobic I can say it is quite popular. I myself have bought 6 (cheaply in Dubai for about $350 USD) of them for myself and friends who asked me to buy them. Pretty much everyone who sees one and has the cash to buy one wants it, it's sleek small and works quite well.
I know it's MS but have you guys even looked at the I-Mate Jam. It's a PDA, a phone, has a 1.3 Meg Pixel camera, runs Window's Media player, ie you can play MP3's, view divx video's, or even develop your own apps on the Compact.NET framework. It takes SD ram so whilst it only comes with 128 Meg out of the box it can be expanded to over a gig.
Are you guys (and Steve Jobs) on the same planet ? You're a little slow... this phone has been available for a long time.
But unless you're in a real rush just wait for the new Windows Mobile 5.0 phones they will be even better.
Hey when I read the article, it kinda says "Wistar Institute, a US biomedical research centre"... Hmmm that would mean it's US not Australian scientists.... Hmmm....
But the story is on "The Australian"... So if we can claim Russel Crowe is Australian (god knows why... the bloody Kiwi is an embaressment) I guess we can also claim ownership of this.
I don't see the contraversy here. This is the same as passed in Australian legislation and has been working fine for a couple of years now. Opt in is the right approach.
Man these guys are stupid. Have these guys thought about the consequence of an even small scale exchange of weapons in space ? Space debris is already a major problem. If these weapons were actually used to any great degree it wouldn't be long before you'd end up with huge problems with some pretty permanent space debris problems.
The real problem with ID's engine is the networking, which has progressively gotten more bloated with every release, the best game ID ever produced for game play and network ability is Quakeworld...
What many game manufacturers don't get is that it doesn't matter how much bandwidth people have, the less bandwidth your game needs to be networked the more people who can play without network degradation, the more people the more fun your game could be online.
When playing a game online the graphics become irrelevant very quickly.... you generally play maps which are common, stock standard and familiar to alot of people... so familiar that graphics and the quality of those graphics is inconsequential.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting indeed..... This is now Apple Mac's typical user. My father who has been an apple Mac zealot since 1982 (when he got his first Apple Mac) has switched over to Windows for almost the exact same reasons as this person as switched over to Apple. He's not interested in development tools or unix whatso-ever. He disliked OS-X so much that he switched to the operating system he has loved to hate for over 15 years...Windows.
And this is the thing... Apple has dumped a large portion of its traditional client base, their most loyal customers, in favour of highly computer literate IT professionals and computer enthusiasts. Apple's scorned traditional client base is not going to forgive them any time soon, cause they really hate change, and whilst the change from MAC OS to windows is painful, it's no where near as painful as going from MAC OS to OS-X.
I don't think Microsoft will be crying over this for one second, as these people that were Apple's bread and butter are now Microsofts bread and butter, and Apple's new clientele are about as fickle as a cat on lsd. They'll abandon Apple on a drop of a hat in favour of the next cool geeky toy that happens to be around the next time they're due to purchase a new PC, maybe it'll be OS-X, maybe it'll be Linux or just maybe it'll be Microsoft's Vista OS with it's hot new 3D rendered desktop.
I think I'll wait until the entire thing comes out on one single disc or cube or whatever it is data will be floating around on 5-10 years from now.
Consumers are smart. They know this data isn't going anywhere, it'll be around for as long as they are (and then some). They'll hold out for as long as it takes to get a decent price before forking out any cash. Personally I don't think I'd consider paying much more than about $500 for this.
Hollywood needs to provide better and cheapers ways of providing its content to consumers, if they don't they'll end up going the same way as the Music Industry. Whilst they don't immediately face the threat the music industry does (dvd quality video with 5.1 sound doesn't come down the wire that quick) eventually they will face it. Hopefully by that time (for their own sake) they'll think my offer is quite generous.
Really? I thought the US was founded with the ideals of liberty and democracy.
Yea but that's America's history, most of which americans don't even know or understand.
Excusing evil and corruption by claiming others are *really* the cause is a bit... silly. It's like ripping off your neighbor because there are no cops around, and other people robbed your neighbor last year anyway, so if you didn't do it, somebody *else* would.
There has never been any corruption in the formation of Microsoft, they pioneered a business in which legalities were grey even to the best lawyers, litigation is unavoidable when you're a market leader in technology. If you think Bill Gates and Microsoft are evil then you simply are clueless...
Try comparing Bill and Microsoft's tactics to the likes of the Carlyle Group, profiteering off death, or pharmaceutical companies which market and research addictions not cures.
My point is there are alot of people who are generating wealth using tactics far more evil than Bill has ever employed. I really don't think they are all that bad and their overall impact on society has been extremely positive. Do you really think if it were up to Apple and IBM that these systems would be as affordable and available as they are today ? The answer of course is no and Microsoft's existance is proof of it.
"Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana
You see the thing about Bill Gates and how he made his money... It's just business, everyone does it, it's what the US society is based on (like it or not). If you're going to have a whinge about Bill and his business tactics you're really having a whinge at reality. You can't blame Bill for the state of the american corporate system. It's the politicians and law makers who have over time have continuously slipped further and further into a state of institutionalised corruption. Business is not a pretty game, you do not survive for long unless you're prepared to do whatever it is you have to do to win. And unlike Dick and George W., Bill hasn't killed anyone to generate wealth for himself.
So is he really so bad ?
DDT ?! Dioxins !!!!
Are you and the moderators insane ?
Maybe they should use DDT and Bill Gates can then donate his money to research into preventing cancer and birth defects that would result from this well known highly toxic substance ending up in the people it was suppose to protect.
This chemical has been banned everywhere where people have an ounce of sense. Using highly toxic substances to eliminate mosquito's is not a solution. The arguments in this article that there's no conclusive proof that DDT causes cancer is pretty much the same tripe used to validate smoking cigarettes. They will wait a generation or two before discovering the costs of spraying DDT inside houses. This is a gamble, with a short term payoff, and a very probable long term cost that may prove to be far more worse than malaria itself.
This is +5 stupidity, not +5 interesting.
I guess there's just not that many ways to spin this one against Bill. God forbid you'd actually commend him.
The cost of software is not important. It's all about delivering access to information to people who need it the most, the poorly educated, computer illiterate, and the isolated. It doesn't matter how free or cheap software is, if people can't work out how to use it and support is unavailable to them, it will fail to deliver on providing access to information. Unusuable free software may as well be worth a million USD, as the end effect is the same.
I'm not saying all Open Source software is unusuable, but lets face it, there's alot usability and support issues with free software.
If you actually read the article you'll see that its talking about Microsoft's charity work in africa, providing computers, MS Software, support and training to African organisations and schools. The cynics will see this as Microsoft hooking these people into their proprietry systems bla bla bla. Just say its true and these people do get hooked, and through information technology they also become educated, entrepreneurial, and one day generate wealth within their community adequet enough to buy M$ software....
In some ways wouldn't that be a good thing ? ie if the average person in Africa could afford Microsoft software ?
Oh yes he's a demon.
Have a look at this site
It goes on about all the other non-profit activities Mr Gates does and the multitude of reasons people come up with for why he's doing it.
Basically the guy is still pretty young.... a spritely 50 in a couple of weeks, and for many years now he has been one of the (if not the) greatest philanthropist in history.
I guess there's nothing the guy will ever do that could get anyone on this site modded up for saying a single positive word about anything he does or has done.
I'm definitely a windows boffin but have tinkered with Linux. My experience with both are the same, the kernel's are rock solid in both products these days and with the RIGHT device drivers. The only time you see kernel level crashes is when there are hardware issues usually as a result of buggy device drivers, or faulty hardware.
The thing I find with linux is that you invariably find hardware vendors drag their feet on the linux drivers as it's far more important to get the windows drivers to market (due to the market's size). I'm no expert but I have found unless your machine's config is pretty vanilla Linux can be really hard to work with. Rate me a troll, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I just find windows with it's hardware auto-detection and out of the box support really kicks ass over linux.
Of course these problems aren't an issue with Apple and OS X as things are shipped as one complete package ready to work. If they wanted unix, maybe they should have gone apple....
These systems are a two edged sword. The more open a system is the easier it is for malicious developers to exploit them. We could easily end up in a situation where in the name of securing systems the big players will lock out smaller players from the market by digitally controlling what applications are allowed to run on these systems. We may be on the dawn of an age where real monopoly's in computing are about to develop, where start-ups face real physical barriers that stop them from entering a market.
The scariest part about this is, consumers will probably go for these systems as they will be hassle free, safe and free of worry. The only worry consumers will have is that the content of these systems is not only controlled for their own protection but also controlled to limit what they can and can't do, for alot of people I think the costs will be outwayed by the benefits.
The license and the patents are designed to stop people from coming along taking Microsoft's schema's for office, saying thanks, and using it as a base for their own development, it in no way stops OpenOffice or any other piece of software from using them to create functionality to read and write or convert MS Office documents. So I really don't see how they limit or affect anyone's freedom of choice other than the actual vendors of office software.
Further more, my argument was never about choosing Microsoft or not, it was about an enterprise that has ALREADY chosen Microsoft, is licensed to use MS Office, been given advice that is in my mind based on a completely ficticious notion such as "Openess" to warrant a very expensive process of switching over to another vendor.
I still haven't heard a single explanation that has any merit that would give me real PRACTICAL reasons for thinking Microsoft's Office XML format is in any PRACTICAL and real way less open than OpenDocument. In actuality Office XML 2003 is more likely to have support in more packages than OpenDocument ever will.
Can't you see the irony here ?
Sure you have alot of names there ... Bash Microsoft ? Sure they're all keen to give one to Microsoft.
Real support doesn't mean by name it means by implementation, what can you do with an document in the OpenDocument schema ? Answer read it in OpenOffice and maybe in a few other very obscure packages with even less market presence.
I'm familiar with GPL licensing and it is quite restrictive if you're in a private enterprise. Microsoft has made numerous statements about the Office XML schema license agreements and patents and have publicly assured people it is in their belief the license is open enough to be used within the majority of GPL projects.
But again this is really a matter of choosing sides not based on technical or legal arguments but based on whether u want to sock it to Microsoft or not. Me I wouldn't advise any company that is currently licensed to use MS Office to dump office and migrate all their documents to something else purely because I think it'd be a waste of time and money. If they want their documents to be in an open format that can easily be read by other systems I would recommend they save documents in XML.
If I was asked to give advice to a new company on a shoe string budget with a need for an office package I may steer them towards Open Office.
OK so there's a license agreement for using MS Office XML schema's.
The terms of this agreement basically say you have the right to distribute use these schema's in any software system to READ AND WRITE Office documents ROYALTY FREE, so long as you give Microsoft credit and the real clincher is... you don't extend it.
Let's quit the emotional BS and talk tin tacs... how much input do you think the guys at OpenOffice have on the OASIS standards when it comes to the evolution of the OpenDocument format ?
A) 10%
B) 20%
C) 90%
or
D) Complete Control
Considering OpenOffice is really the only software with any footprint at all in the market place using this schema, I'm betting right now and for the immediate future it's bound to be C or but really probably D. I also think you have to be completely naive to think the OpenDocument schema comes with no strings attached, it also comes with license agreements that you have to adhere to so basically what we have really is two groups competing with each other. There's nothing wrong with that.
Microsoft invented the embrace, extend, extinguish doctrine, they're not about to let anyone use their own tactics against them. Allowing someone to extend their own schema would create a one way flow from MS Office to a competing product, documents written by competitors software in the extended MS Office schema would be incomplete when viewed in an MS Office application. I think it's reasonable for them to insist that documents based on their schema's be readable (in their entirety) by MS Office.
I personally haven't encountered an enterprise using OpenOffice, I don't know what its market share is but I'll guess and say not much, until it has a reasonable market share I don't blame Microsoft for not supporting it, that costs time, money and comprimises their OWN vision for their OWN product. The schema's Microsoft have provided give complete transparity to Office XML documents, they are clear, very well documented, any software product should easily be able to support them, allowing that software to freely manipulate and rewrite that data into any schema it likes.
You really don't know what you're talking about... See my comment ....
How this gets rated as +5 when it's completely factually incorrect I have no idea. I guess we shouldn't let facts get in the road of bashing Microsoft.
Uses of the current version of Office already have the option of saving in XML data formats. However it's currently not the default but it is very simple to configure office applications to save in these formats by default. The next version Office 12 will save in xml by default
Don't be surprised if this ends up being a boon for Microsoft with governments upgrading to Office 2003 and/or Office 12.
Microsoft's biggest problem in this regard is that everyone is seen as an enemy, and everything is seen as a threat. If Steve Ballmer actually had a brain in his head, he might realise a couple of things:-
...to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful
1) Microsoft CAN'T be everywhere at once. It isn't possible. They can't be developing new operating systems, upgrading Office, creating development software, and conquering the Web all at once.
2) Because of 1, other companies are going to be in some computer-related niche somewhere.
Microsoft and google are in direct competition with each other as they both have the same objective.
Googles mission statement is to quote their company overview page....
Windows currently runs on most household computers and in many of the worlds offices, allowing people to organise and manage their data.... Surely you can see they both have the same goal. And as you can see by Googles own words as you put it they want to be everywhere.
Why ? Because lets face it one of these guys eventually will be everywhere cause people are essentially lazy and just want systems that do for them exactly what they need them to do with the minimum amount of effort. The average consumer wants his computer to be as easy to use as a telephone and still be able to perform any task he might think it could do for him. He also doesn't really want competition, that'd mean having to think about which system is the best and checking to see if it works with all their business partners, family and friends systems. Utimately... just as in highlander "There can only be one !". And Microsoft and Google aren't the only ones who believe this to be true.
My comment was in reference to the notion of forcing application developers to apply for a trusted digital certificate to sign their applications and for the OS to deny unsigned applications or applications signed with a certificate that is not trusted the priveledge to execute.
This is exactly how Microsoft's Smartphone OS works. Apps simply won't run on a phone unless they are signed with a trusted digital certificate. The OS is basically locked down. These sorts of systems put in place the mechanism to lock out smaller developers and unwanted competition from an OS and is completely contrary to the whole notion of Open Source.
And as for my other comment about it being amateurish... it doesn't matter how/when the files were infected or exactly how official or unofficial this ftp site was, any professional organisation should be tightly controlling and reviewing the packaging and distribution of it's applications.
This is a ludicrous statement.
A system where apps have to be signed in order for the app to be deployable on an OS would make that OS a totally closed and a private shop. No developer would be allowed to develop apps for the OS unless some central body deems it in their interest.
In this case, if the story is true, it may have made no difference, as the files were on Mozilla's own FTP site. Even if the app was signed, it may be that the files were infected as they were being built. In other words if Mozilla were signing their apps, they could have been signed with Mozilla's trusted certificate and still be infected with the virus.
I think it's yet another example of how Amateurish open source development can be. It's totally unforgivable for any professional software organisation to distribute apps infected with a virus, neverlone such a major vendor.
Slashdot's moderating has really gone steeply down hill of late there's no way this should be a 5.
Hey think about it... this could actually work ! Get everyone on the planet to wear nylon jackets. Once every few hours we earth ourselves directly into the power grid. If you then made illegalised cars and made everyone ride motorbikes or push bikes think of the potential !!
Sure a few people might spontaneously combust every now and then, a couple of occasional fires.... but wouldn't that cost be worth saving the environment for ?
I once had an issue with my compaq blue screening returning out of sleep mode, I'd installed every update on compaq's website and scoured the net for a solution.
One day out of sheer desparation I decided to send the report off to Microsoft and to my surprise it came back with a link to a support website giving very obscure step by step instructions which magically resolved my problem.
I don't often get exceptions in windows where I'm at a loss for an explanation as to the cause, but in future when I do I'll definitely be posting them to Microsoft.
Amongst people who aren't MS Phobic I can say it is quite popular. I myself have bought 6 (cheaply in Dubai for about $350 USD) of them for myself and friends who asked me to buy them. Pretty much everyone who sees one and has the cash to buy one wants it, it's sleek small and works quite well.
*COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH*
.NET framework. It takes SD ram so whilst it only comes with 128 Meg out of the box it can be expanded to over a gig.
I know it's MS but have you guys even looked at the I-Mate Jam. It's a PDA, a phone, has a 1.3 Meg Pixel camera, runs Window's Media player, ie you can play MP3's, view divx video's, or even develop your own apps on the Compact
Are you guys (and Steve Jobs) on the same planet ? You're a little slow... this phone has been available for a long time.
But unless you're in a real rush just wait for the new Windows Mobile 5.0 phones they will be even better.
Oi! Oi! Oi?
Hey when I read the article, it kinda says "Wistar Institute, a US biomedical research centre"... Hmmm that would mean it's US not Australian scientists.... Hmmm....
But the story is on "The Australian"... So if we can claim Russel Crowe is Australian (god knows why... the bloody Kiwi is an embaressment) I guess we can also claim ownership of this.
I don't see the contraversy here. This is the same as passed in Australian legislation and has been working fine for a couple of years now. Opt in is the right approach.
Man these guys are stupid. Have these guys thought about the consequence of an even small scale exchange of weapons in space ? Space debris is already a major problem. If these weapons were actually used to any great degree it wouldn't be long before you'd end up with huge problems with some pretty permanent space debris problems.
The real problem with ID's engine is the networking, which has progressively gotten more bloated with every release, the best game ID ever produced for game play and network ability is Quakeworld...
What many game manufacturers don't get is that it doesn't matter how much bandwidth people have, the less bandwidth your game needs to be networked the more people who can play without network degradation, the more people the more fun your game could be online.
When playing a game online the graphics become irrelevant very quickly.... you generally play maps which are common, stock standard and familiar to alot of people... so familiar that graphics and the quality of those graphics is inconsequential.