Oddly, neither the website or the news story goes into any detail of what LinuxFund *is*. i.e. I assume the money comes from special credit card programs, but the site doesn't seem to explain how it's used. Is the money put toward internal developers on the project or is it used to provide grant money to OSS projects? Can anyone fill in the details?
IHMO, the best organization for something like this is for LinuxFunds to be an administrative entity only. Proposals for Open Source software and funding requirements could then be submitted to the project for review and potential approval. Selected OSS projects would receive the funding they requested according to the payment schedule that was approved. This payment schedule would allow LinuxFunds to track the progress of a given project, and make adjustments as necessary. (Potentially even cutting off funding if the project is not viable.)
Such an organization would require only a few knowledgable employees to make the decisions and administrate the funds. With funds transfers being what they are today, much of the grunt work (transfer, accounting, etc.) could be done automatically. Since this is a publicly supported organization, it should publish a detailed accounting of its usage of the money.
To put things in perspective, the current funds of $126k work out to about 5,250 man hours of work at ~$24/hr (~$50,000/yr).
Some of the concept artwork, it shows the space vehicle in the direct ascent mode. Geez, did people forget that the lunar rendezvous mode is what made Apollo successful? Did everyone forget physics particularly the rocket equation?
What of it? Many NASA missions are designed to eject the parachute a few hundred feet above the ground, then use retro-thrusters to make the touchdown. (e.g. Viking 1) It has become popular with NASA as of late to perform landings via inflatable airbags, but such a profile only works if the instruments aren't too delicate. In some cases it may be required to use retro-thrusters to prevent damage to the probe.
The business model seems to be providing technical support, and the CDs help spreading the distribution and make it common.
This sort of model always confused me. Shouldn't software developers be attempting to reduce support calls by making things "Just Work(TM)"? In theory, any company who follows this business model will either:
a) Obfuscate their software (see: JBoss) b) Work themselves out of profits
It's just weird.
Also, I read an interview somewhere with the very rich guy who sponsors the whole thing where he said that he hopes he can eventually make money of it this way,
Interesting. In any case, if I go for the CDs I'll probably donate so that I don't feel so darn cheap.;-)
There's just one thing I don't understand about Ubuntu: Why are they shipping free(!) CDs to people? That has to cost them a fortune, especically for international shipments! I love a free gift as much as the next guy, but the thought of getting a no-cost Ubuntu CD without the company ever seeing a return makes me feel kind of cheap.
Not necessarily legal, but hell, I'm sure someone told me copyrights and patents were there to foster innovation... so the corporations better get on and innovate before it gets innovated for them!
It's a bit like Prohibition. The public demanded that alcohol be available, and was willing to buy large quantities of it regardless of the legality (and even safety!) of the drink. The wikipedia article goes into excellent detail on the long term effects that prohibition had on the economy.
The media industries' failure to keep up with technology is developing a very similar vacuum. If iTunes hadn't come along and started a business revolution, I would shudder to think of the legal wars that would have developed.
could you even download other versions of Solaris?;-)
On again, off again. You could download Solaris 7 if you were a student. Then you could download Solaris 8 if you had less than 8 CPUs. Then you had to pay to download Solaris 9. Then that waffled back and forth a bit. So the definitive answer is: Sort of.;-)
I had CD after CD jammed with MP3s from FTP servers hosted on home DSL and cable modem accounts, indexed on well known search engines.
Do you know how few people actually knew how to find these files? And no, they weren't *that* well indexed. For example, I remember looking for Elvis's "In the Ghetto" as a demonstration for a friend. Couldn't find it. I could find some very modern stuff, but MP3s were always grab bag. After Napster came out, you could get anything you wanted any time you wanted it.
Have we all forgotten when those who were later to become major Internet presences thought nothing of being trackers for MP3 servers as if piracy was not involved?
Eh? You mean "AllTheWeb"? (or was that Lycos?) Those guys really managed to screw up a great FTP Search engine. Alas, those days are long gone. Oh well, I can buy music on iTunes now and Google is WAY better for finding stuff.:-)
Now we're getting somewhere. Everything I've seen so far states that it *is* an XML format, so I'd love to know your source. But for now I'll happily take your word for it. At the very least, it explains where you're coming from.
It's an open compound document format that happens to use XML to store some of its data and (much more importantly) the relationships of the pieces w.r.t one another, and ZIP to bind it together.
So, technically speaking, this is not an XML document. It sounds like it's more of a indexable structured text document (for lack of a better term) like that used in the PDF format. (PDF uses a stream of textual "objects" that can contain encoded binary data. Each object is indexed in an offset table at the end of the file. Offset tables override one another, thus allowing objects to be rewritten and overridden without rewriting the entire file.)
If this is actually true, then I take no issue with this format. The (most likely psuedo) openness of it is a nice addition. But they really need to stop claiming that "it's all XML". It "contains some XML structures" is more accurate. And if they *really* wanted to play nice, they'd provide an import/export filter for OASIS OpenDocument.
This ties right into my previous point that teams need to ship on time accept no dependencies, a point you blithely ignore.
No, I wasn't ignoring it. You weren't communicating the nature of the file as you saw it. Thus I was still coming from the perspective that this is *another* XML format. Not really anyone's fault, but the info you're providing would have been nice to know before we got into it.
And in what sense is it a 'linear' format?
Very simple. An XML document normally contains no indexes for random access. To extract the data from such a file, you need to read through it in a linear fashion. This limits the tradeoffs you can make in file design. Using an XML database scheme can improve performance of reads, but doesn't help much for random access.
There are certain CS types who have a very abstract view of code and data. For them, data is data, however it's laid out, and therefore all formats are alike
Blah, blah, blah. Here is a run of text. An attribute of that run is that it is bold. This is basic stuff that was hashed out 20 years ago and hasn't changed a bit. There's nothing new to this data structure. The features of one format over another are in areas of size, writing speed, and random access.
Then there are those who've actually created sophisticated formats, and know that each format (even the XML ones) are born of thousands of tiny design decisions and tradeoffs until what you have is something that bestows a market benefit upon your product.
Once you decide to go compressed XML, you're locked into a linear format that decides many of those tradeoffs for you. If your argument was going to hold water, Microsoft wouldn't take that path. But they have, despite any issues with the XML format. I sincerely doubt you'll see any "Oh wow! That's brilliant!" type of things in their XML. Unless, that is, it can't be parsed with a normal parser. (Which would immediately show that Microsoft's format *isn't* an open standard.)
You asked for features: here are two. High end analytics (logical future path for Excel).
Which has zip to do with the file format. Although a *binary* format may prove to be more efficient for retrieving and saving data in such a program. (Much like existing Office Documents and PDF structures.)
Unstructured storage (logical extension for anything Office related, esp if WinFS finally ships).
Which can't be achieved with XML, an inherently structured data format.
Is this so farfetched? Are there existing products that use their proprietary format to an advantage?
The only thing far-fetched is your inability to understand that Microsoft is moving to an XML format, not another binary format.
I thought the whole point about this is that DOCX and friends are freely licensed? There's nothing now to stop someone from writing an OO plugin that reads and writes DOCX.
Try again. Need I remind you of the still unfinished WordML spec:
Microsoft Corp. also uses XML in its most recent Microsoft Office formats. While it has opened these formats to some extent, Microsoft's XML formats are still proprietary and it has tried to patent some of its XML format technology. Microsoft also charges royalties for accessing its formats.
So far we have the word of a few bloggers that these will truely be royalty free. That doesn't necessarily mean that it can be used in *any* project. Remember, some things are "look but don't touch".
I can almost picture you there: the hobby coder for whom the world revolves around glacially moving mailing lists and IRC channels.
You, sir, are a very poor judge of character and experience. Let me put it this way: Once upon a time I thought Microsoft was the best company on the planet. I actually argued against my peers that Microsoft was not a bad company. Then I began to learn more about software engineering and the other OSes that Microsoft stamped out. Didn't take very long before I'd managed to trace most of the history of Microsoft's "innovation". In order:
- Microsoft BASIC was nothing more than a quick port of an existing BASIC language written by others. - DOS was a cheap CP/M knockoff that Microsoft purchased. - Windows was marketing hype designed to keep people from buying VisiOn. - Word, Excel, and other office programs were purchased from other companies. - COM was a Unix technology that Microsoft bought out and retasked for Windows. - NT was the next generation VMS kernel (that Microso
I don't give anyone credit for anything other than that they will do what is most convenient. Consumers would happily have used an iTunes service back when MP3s first appeared. At the time I said that the music industry needs to get this done or they won't be able to stop MP3s. Well, guess what? They couldn't stop MP3s.
An economic vacuum has absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals. It has everything to do with the desires of the mob. The mob wanted MP3s. Back when Napster came out, they were rare as gold. I have few doubts that people would have plunked down small amounts of money for each song (possibly even under a Napster model). But the music industry didn't want to give up their precious CD price hikes, and as a result they got burned. There's no two ways about it.
iTunes survives on a thin number of subscribers compared to the number of people who still warez their music, simply because iTunes costs money.
Got any figures? If there was any good statistical models for Internet piracy, I'm willing to bet that they'd show a marked decrease in the number of songs pirated. Or, at the very least, the growth curve flattening. Meanwhile, iTunes is putting real money in the pockets of music studios. Real money that they wouldn't otherwise have.
I'm not sure what universe you live in, but the vast majority of those pirating materials on the Internet aren't doing so because of the lack of a well-thought-out legal distribution model.
Try again. The lack of a well-thought-out legal distribution model is EXACTLY the reason for rampant piracy. What we have here is the same sort of loophole that brought Napster into existence. The public wants their entertainment media combined with the convenience of the Internet. In the case of Napster, the RIAA tried to ignore the market pressures and stiffle the distribution of MP3s. Yet without realizing it, they only managed to add to an economic vacuum. As you probably know, nature abhors a vacuum.
As a result, every attempt by the RIAA to crush the MP3 craze only served to increase it. Before they knew it, MP3 players started popping up and an entire market grew around something was supposed to be illegal. This prompted Steve Jobs to call the music executives a bunch of idiots, and then go on to figure out a music distribution model for them. Today, iTunes is a highly successful product that has spawned a large number of competitors. Between them, they have caused people to pay for music that they would have otherwise pirated.
The same thing is now happening to the Television industry. Between TIVOs and BitTorrent, the world is demanding digital, on-demand television. The TV industry has been somewhat supportive with things like TV on DVD releases and Cable on-demand(which has probably helped a lot), but can't seem to let go of its traditional content delivery models. This is slowly causing a vacuum which BitTorrent is quickly filling.
Which is really too bad. An Internet distribution model could allow TV producers to completely break free of the rigors of program scheuduling, annual show seasons, required program order sizes, and primetime competition. Instead, shows would compete directly on how attractive they are to the market.
As for movies, I think a vacuum is developing, but it's not a real problem yet. People want Internet content delivery, but are still happy with it being exclusively released to the Theater first. Most of what's going on right now is true piracy that the industry has always had to deal with. As a result, it doesn't currently impact their numbers by much as long as they keep it in check. But in the near future, I predict that people are going to feel much more strongly about having on-demand access to old movie libraries (where old is any movie that has been out for more than a year to a year and a half).
However, the capabilities and of character-sets and toilet-paper dimensions can be described with a precision that you cannot apply to word-processors or spreadsheets
Nonsense. Document structure for both Word Processing and Spreadsheets have remained stable for at least ten years now. That's what has made specs like XSL-FO (a universal document format) possible. The only changes to such software has been in the features that operate on that data. e.g. One spreadsheet might support pivot tables while another one might not. It doesn't change the data that is stored, though. At the most, you'd need to add some meta data describing the operation performed. This sort of thing is well handled by the OASIS spec.
Standardizing wordprocessors/spreadsheets when their very capabilities are evolving is more than madness, it's bureaucratic control-freakery of the worst order.
Okay, name some features that require a proprietary format. Go ahead, take your time. I'll wait.
Considering that DOCX is equivalent to what OASIS offers
OASIS: Free, Open Standard DOCX: Requires an expensive Microsoft license to use.
They don't seem the same to me. And if they truely *are* the same at a technology level (which may be true), that kind of undermines your whole argument about proprietary formats, doesn't it?
Sun really needs to get Open Solaris out the door. If they play their cards right, they can push Solaris back into the market. Once they have a foothold with the "free" (as in Beer, Libre, and whatever other BS you want to call it) version, they can then turn around and become the premier vendor for Solaris systems. Whether it be x86, AMD64, or 64 way UltraSparc boxes, Sun will provide it and make companies feel all warm and fuzzy.
At the same time, Sun can leverage a large degree of open source software built around their platform, while upcoming developers and IT workers can have the pleasure of running Solaris on any machine they want. With any luck, it will be a win/win situation for everyone.:-)
The thing that bugs me about OASIS is that they have neither Microsoft nor WordPerfect on board -
Really? I thought Corel owned WordPerfect? From OASIS OpenDocument FAQ:
OpenDocument has its roots in the OpenOffice.org XML file format. In December 2002, Arbortext, Boeing, Corel, CSW Informatics, Drake Certivo, [...] Stellent and Sun Microsystems founded the OASIS Open Office XML Format TC to develop a standardized XML-based file format for office applications.
Seems to me like they're onboard. The catch is that no one (including OpenOffice) has yet released a product supporting the standard. It's too new of a standard. The only OpenOffice version to do so is still in beta. You should see suites such as WordPerfect supporting the format within the next year or two.
An average GUI wordprocessor/spreadsheet has more complexity in it than emacs, measured by the number of ways a user can interact with it. To this, add differing program models (WordPerfect used a XML-like DOM model for storing data, Word used a Run-based model where blocks of text were tagged with attributes (this was why Reveal Codes took so long to implement in Word)).
Do you have any idea WHY these file formats were so complex and MSOffice uses a run based format? Hint: It has nothing to do with the data being stored.
The answer is that those complex formats were an attempt to record edits directly to the file without rewriting the entire document. In the olden days, this made a lot of sense as computers weren't very fast. Unfortunately, this also made Office documents very complex as they became miniture file systems unto themselves.
All of that goes away when you move to an XML file stored in a ZIP archive. Now you have to cleanly re-write the structure for every save, and it becomes a matter of supporting the necessary features. It wouldn't surprise me if the new MSOffice still loads the new format into an old-style MSOffice temp file, but that doesn't place any restrictions on the XML output format.
I'd say using a interoperable native format is better than developing a watered down, common-denominator format.
You're right. Instead of ASCII/Unicode encoding, we should go back to per-computer text encodings! Not just EBCDIC, we don't need standards! Proprietary formats are better! I'll go create my own right now that scatters the english alphabet all over the 8 bit address space! All in the name of making a "not watered down" format! I'll be rich, rich I tell you! (rolls eyes)
The world runs on standards. You probably don't even think about the fact that your paper towel always fits the holder, or that your appliances always fits through the door, or that your car takes gas from any gas station. These sorts of non-issues we take for granted exist as major barriers in countries that don't participate in standards such as China. (I'm sure there's a "standards evading is communist" joke in there somewhere.) Attempting to evade standards only hurts everyone.
Because OASIS is one specification which might be completely and utterly incompatible with the way Office lays things out, and would require a significant investment to change to it?
Bullocks. We're talking about a file format for a word processor and a spreadsheet. If OOo and MSOffice can interchange formats today (not to mention all the extra "export" formats that MSOffice handles) then there's no reason why they can't follow the OASIS spec. The worst case is that MSOFfice adds a few features for some of the more esoteric functionality.
Besides, there wouldn't be *any* problem if Microsoft had joined the OASIS working group in the first place, now would there?
Actually, that's not a bad point. What's to stop Microsoft from implanting things like VBScriptlets that are required for the document to render? That would put a real cramp in the competitors' ability to read the format, regardless of how "Open" it is.
Also, "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is a little overreaching, don't you think?
That's exactly what I was thinking. If Microsoft was really opening up Office, why didn't they go for the OASIS Spec? Me thinks that this is an attempt by Microsoft to lead the industry around by the nose, thus solidifying their place as "Industry Leader". And with a proprietary document format, they can make minor, but frustrating, changes every version just to keep the competition on its toes.
Wait. I think I did it. I misunderstood your post, didn't I? Sorry about that. With so many people (willfully?) misunderstanding my posts, I'm heavily on the defensive. Sorry about that.
Okkkaaaayyy... so what does ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A GUY CALLING SLASHDOT A BUNCH OF GOOGLE COCK SUCKERS? I asked that he be modded down and he was. AS I SAID (time and fucking time again), THIS IS REAL AND IMPORTANT NEWS. So will everyone (yourself included) stop being an asshole and PAY FUCKING ATTENTION!
Let me put it this way: People won't be very afraid after the terrorists fail to kill anyone after the second or third attempt. People will actually be laughing at the stupidity of the terrorists. And the media will, of course, blame the entire scare mongering on the government instead of their own inability to check the facts.
Terrorists aren't always the brightest (e.g. the attack on the USS Sullivans), but they aren't that stupid. If they have anyone with enough knowledge to make a dirty bomb, they have someone with enough knowledge to tell them why it won't work. (And trust me, countless governments from Hitler on up have explored the idea.)
The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume two things:
1. That no competitors will enter the market. 2. That people will pay anything for nuclear batteries.
The first is dubious at best. It's far more likely that such a cash cow would be embraced by multiple manufacturers, even if they have to develop different technology.
The second is just outright wrong. I seriously doubt that anyone would put up with being gouged for a nuclear battery when they can just as easily use a rechargable. Competition exists in the battery market already. Nuclear batteries would have to be competitive with that market. They can't just assume that everyone wants one enough to pay out as much as their car.
Thereby making it trivial for anyone with Wal-Mart access to put together a "dirty bomb"?
Repeat after me: Dirty bombs don't work. They are a media scare and nothing else. Campaigns of FUD are designed to fool idiots into believing that everything they read in comic books is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly, neither the website or the news story goes into any detail of what LinuxFund *is*. i.e. I assume the money comes from special credit card programs, but the site doesn't seem to explain how it's used. Is the money put toward internal developers on the project or is it used to provide grant money to OSS projects? Can anyone fill in the details?
:-)
IHMO, the best organization for something like this is for LinuxFunds to be an administrative entity only. Proposals for Open Source software and funding requirements could then be submitted to the project for review and potential approval. Selected OSS projects would receive the funding they requested according to the payment schedule that was approved. This payment schedule would allow LinuxFunds to track the progress of a given project, and make adjustments as necessary. (Potentially even cutting off funding if the project is not viable.)
Such an organization would require only a few knowledgable employees to make the decisions and administrate the funds. With funds transfers being what they are today, much of the grunt work (transfer, accounting, etc.) could be done automatically. Since this is a publicly supported organization, it should publish a detailed accounting of its usage of the money.
To put things in perspective, the current funds of $126k work out to about 5,250 man hours of work at ~$24/hr (~$50,000/yr).
That's my thoughts anyway.
Some of the concept artwork, it shows the space vehicle in the direct ascent mode. Geez, did people forget that the lunar rendezvous mode is what made Apollo successful? Did everyone forget physics particularly the rocket equation?
What of it? Many NASA missions are designed to eject the parachute a few hundred feet above the ground, then use retro-thrusters to make the touchdown. (e.g. Viking 1) It has become popular with NASA as of late to perform landings via inflatable airbags, but such a profile only works if the instruments aren't too delicate. In some cases it may be required to use retro-thrusters to prevent damage to the probe.
The business model seems to be providing technical support, and the CDs help spreading the distribution and make it common.
;-)
This sort of model always confused me. Shouldn't software developers be attempting to reduce support calls by making things "Just Work(TM)"? In theory, any company who follows this business model will either:
a) Obfuscate their software (see: JBoss)
b) Work themselves out of profits
It's just weird.
Also, I read an interview somewhere with the very rich guy who sponsors the whole thing where he said that he hopes he can eventually make money of it this way,
Interesting. In any case, if I go for the CDs I'll probably donate so that I don't feel so darn cheap.
There's just one thing I don't understand about Ubuntu: Why are they shipping free(!) CDs to people? That has to cost them a fortune, especically for international shipments! I love a free gift as much as the next guy, but the thought of getting a no-cost Ubuntu CD without the company ever seeing a return makes me feel kind of cheap.
Anyone have the scoop?
Not necessarily legal, but hell, I'm sure someone told me copyrights and patents were there to foster innovation... so the corporations better get on and innovate before it gets innovated for them!
It's a bit like Prohibition. The public demanded that alcohol be available, and was willing to buy large quantities of it regardless of the legality (and even safety!) of the drink. The wikipedia article goes into excellent detail on the long term effects that prohibition had on the economy.
The media industries' failure to keep up with technology is developing a very similar vacuum. If iTunes hadn't come along and started a business revolution, I would shudder to think of the legal wars that would have developed.
Actually, it's a reference to this non-palindrome.
Hey, you could be my assistant! Would you like that? Would you like to ride with... Batman? (insert shifty eyes and flipping towel)
could you even download other versions of Solaris? ;-)
;-)
On again, off again. You could download Solaris 7 if you were a student. Then you could download Solaris 8 if you had less than 8 CPUs. Then you had to pay to download Solaris 9. Then that waffled back and forth a bit. So the definitive answer is: Sort of.
I had CD after CD jammed with MP3s from FTP servers hosted on home DSL and cable modem accounts, indexed on well known search engines.
:-)
Do you know how few people actually knew how to find these files? And no, they weren't *that* well indexed. For example, I remember looking for Elvis's "In the Ghetto" as a demonstration for a friend. Couldn't find it. I could find some very modern stuff, but MP3s were always grab bag. After Napster came out, you could get anything you wanted any time you wanted it.
Have we all forgotten when those who were later to become major Internet presences thought nothing of being trackers for MP3 servers as if piracy was not involved?
Eh? You mean "AllTheWeb"? (or was that Lycos?) Those guys really managed to screw up a great FTP Search engine. Alas, those days are long gone. Oh well, I can buy music on iTunes now and Google is WAY better for finding stuff.
DOCX isn't an XML format.
Now we're getting somewhere. Everything I've seen so far states that it *is* an XML format, so I'd love to know your source. But for now I'll happily take your word for it. At the very least, it explains where you're coming from.
It's an open compound document format that happens to use XML to store some of its data and (much more importantly) the relationships of the pieces w.r.t one another, and ZIP to bind it together.
So, technically speaking, this is not an XML document. It sounds like it's more of a indexable structured text document (for lack of a better term) like that used in the PDF format. (PDF uses a stream of textual "objects" that can contain encoded binary data. Each object is indexed in an offset table at the end of the file. Offset tables override one another, thus allowing objects to be rewritten and overridden without rewriting the entire file.)
If this is actually true, then I take no issue with this format. The (most likely psuedo) openness of it is a nice addition. But they really need to stop claiming that "it's all XML". It "contains some XML structures" is more accurate. And if they *really* wanted to play nice, they'd provide an import/export filter for OASIS OpenDocument.
This ties right into my previous point that teams need to ship on time accept no dependencies, a point you blithely ignore.
No, I wasn't ignoring it. You weren't communicating the nature of the file as you saw it. Thus I was still coming from the perspective that this is *another* XML format. Not really anyone's fault, but the info you're providing would have been nice to know before we got into it.
And in what sense is it a 'linear' format?
Very simple. An XML document normally contains no indexes for random access. To extract the data from such a file, you need to read through it in a linear fashion. This limits the tradeoffs you can make in file design. Using an XML database scheme can improve performance of reads, but doesn't help much for random access.
No, I understand that. What OpenSolaris will do is that it will:
:-)
a) Allow redistribution
b) Generate Buzz
c) Generate a larger community around Solaris (the current one is pretty small I'm afraid)
None of this is served by the current Solaris. However, Solaris 10 has become the most downloaded version ever, so Sun is doing something right.
Now if someone would just fix the damn install program to configure the DNS and Gateway correctly...
There are certain CS types who have a very abstract view of code and data. For them, data is data, however it's laid out, and therefore all formats are alike
Blah, blah, blah. Here is a run of text. An attribute of that run is that it is bold. This is basic stuff that was hashed out 20 years ago and hasn't changed a bit. There's nothing new to this data structure. The features of one format over another are in areas of size, writing speed, and random access.
Then there are those who've actually created sophisticated formats, and know that each format (even the XML ones) are born of thousands of tiny design decisions and tradeoffs until what you have is something that bestows a market benefit upon your product.
Once you decide to go compressed XML, you're locked into a linear format that decides many of those tradeoffs for you. If your argument was going to hold water, Microsoft wouldn't take that path. But they have, despite any issues with the XML format. I sincerely doubt you'll see any "Oh wow! That's brilliant!" type of things in their XML. Unless, that is, it can't be parsed with a normal parser. (Which would immediately show that Microsoft's format *isn't* an open standard.)
You asked for features: here are two. High end analytics (logical future path for Excel).
Which has zip to do with the file format. Although a *binary* format may prove to be more efficient for retrieving and saving data in such a program. (Much like existing Office Documents and PDF structures.)
Unstructured storage (logical extension for anything Office related, esp if WinFS finally ships).
Which can't be achieved with XML, an inherently structured data format.
Is this so farfetched? Are there existing products that use their proprietary format to an advantage?
The only thing far-fetched is your inability to understand that Microsoft is moving to an XML format, not another binary format.
I thought the whole point about this is that DOCX and friends are freely licensed? There's nothing now to stop someone from writing an OO plugin that reads and writes DOCX.
Try again. Need I remind you of the still unfinished WordML spec:
So far we have the word of a few bloggers that these will truely be royalty free. That doesn't necessarily mean that it can be used in *any* project. Remember, some things are "look but don't touch".
I can almost picture you there: the hobby coder for whom the world revolves around glacially moving mailing lists and IRC channels.
You, sir, are a very poor judge of character and experience. Let me put it this way: Once upon a time I thought Microsoft was the best company on the planet. I actually argued against my peers that Microsoft was not a bad company. Then I began to learn more about software engineering and the other OSes that Microsoft stamped out. Didn't take very long before I'd managed to trace most of the history of Microsoft's "innovation". In order:
- Microsoft BASIC was nothing more than a quick port of an existing BASIC language written by others.
- DOS was a cheap CP/M knockoff that Microsoft purchased.
- Windows was marketing hype designed to keep people from buying VisiOn.
- Word, Excel, and other office programs were purchased from other companies.
- COM was a Unix technology that Microsoft bought out and retasked for Windows.
- NT was the next generation VMS kernel (that Microso
You give the average person too much credit.
I don't give anyone credit for anything other than that they will do what is most convenient. Consumers would happily have used an iTunes service back when MP3s first appeared. At the time I said that the music industry needs to get this done or they won't be able to stop MP3s. Well, guess what? They couldn't stop MP3s.
An economic vacuum has absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals. It has everything to do with the desires of the mob. The mob wanted MP3s. Back when Napster came out, they were rare as gold. I have few doubts that people would have plunked down small amounts of money for each song (possibly even under a Napster model). But the music industry didn't want to give up their precious CD price hikes, and as a result they got burned. There's no two ways about it.
iTunes survives on a thin number of subscribers compared to the number of people who still warez their music, simply because iTunes costs money.
Got any figures? If there was any good statistical models for Internet piracy, I'm willing to bet that they'd show a marked decrease in the number of songs pirated. Or, at the very least, the growth curve flattening. Meanwhile, iTunes is putting real money in the pockets of music studios. Real money that they wouldn't otherwise have.
I'm not sure what universe you live in, but the vast majority of those pirating materials on the Internet aren't doing so because of the lack of a well-thought-out legal distribution model.
Try again. The lack of a well-thought-out legal distribution model is EXACTLY the reason for rampant piracy. What we have here is the same sort of loophole that brought Napster into existence. The public wants their entertainment media combined with the convenience of the Internet. In the case of Napster, the RIAA tried to ignore the market pressures and stiffle the distribution of MP3s. Yet without realizing it, they only managed to add to an economic vacuum. As you probably know, nature abhors a vacuum.
As a result, every attempt by the RIAA to crush the MP3 craze only served to increase it. Before they knew it, MP3 players started popping up and an entire market grew around something was supposed to be illegal. This prompted Steve Jobs to call the music executives a bunch of idiots, and then go on to figure out a music distribution model for them. Today, iTunes is a highly successful product that has spawned a large number of competitors. Between them, they have caused people to pay for music that they would have otherwise pirated.
The same thing is now happening to the Television industry. Between TIVOs and BitTorrent, the world is demanding digital, on-demand television. The TV industry has been somewhat supportive with things like TV on DVD releases and Cable on-demand(which has probably helped a lot), but can't seem to let go of its traditional content delivery models. This is slowly causing a vacuum which BitTorrent is quickly filling.
Which is really too bad. An Internet distribution model could allow TV producers to completely break free of the rigors of program scheuduling, annual show seasons, required program order sizes, and primetime competition. Instead, shows would compete directly on how attractive they are to the market.
As for movies, I think a vacuum is developing, but it's not a real problem yet. People want Internet content delivery, but are still happy with it being exclusively released to the Theater first. Most of what's going on right now is true piracy that the industry has always had to deal with. As a result, it doesn't currently impact their numbers by much as long as they keep it in check. But in the near future, I predict that people are going to feel much more strongly about having on-demand access to old movie libraries (where old is any movie that has been out for more than a year to a year and a half).
However, the capabilities and of character-sets and toilet-paper dimensions can be described with a precision that you cannot apply to word-processors or spreadsheets
Nonsense. Document structure for both Word Processing and Spreadsheets have remained stable for at least ten years now. That's what has made specs like XSL-FO (a universal document format) possible. The only changes to such software has been in the features that operate on that data. e.g. One spreadsheet might support pivot tables while another one might not. It doesn't change the data that is stored, though. At the most, you'd need to add some meta data describing the operation performed. This sort of thing is well handled by the OASIS spec.
Standardizing wordprocessors/spreadsheets when their very capabilities are evolving is more than madness, it's bureaucratic control-freakery of the worst order.
Okay, name some features that require a proprietary format. Go ahead, take your time. I'll wait.
Considering that DOCX is equivalent to what OASIS offers
OASIS: Free, Open Standard
DOCX: Requires an expensive Microsoft license to use.
OASIS: Interoperable.
DOCX: Proprietary moving target.
They don't seem the same to me. And if they truely *are* the same at a technology level (which may be true), that kind of undermines your whole argument about proprietary formats, doesn't it?
Sun really needs to get Open Solaris out the door. If they play their cards right, they can push Solaris back into the market. Once they have a foothold with the "free" (as in Beer, Libre, and whatever other BS you want to call it) version, they can then turn around and become the premier vendor for Solaris systems. Whether it be x86, AMD64, or 64 way UltraSparc boxes, Sun will provide it and make companies feel all warm and fuzzy.
:-)
At the same time, Sun can leverage a large degree of open source software built around their platform, while upcoming developers and IT workers can have the pleasure of running Solaris on any machine they want. With any luck, it will be a win/win situation for everyone.
Really? I thought Corel owned WordPerfect? From OASIS OpenDocument FAQ:
Seems to me like they're onboard. The catch is that no one (including OpenOffice) has yet released a product supporting the standard. It's too new of a standard. The only OpenOffice version to do so is still in beta. You should see suites such as WordPerfect supporting the format within the next year or two.
An average GUI wordprocessor/spreadsheet has more complexity in it than emacs, measured by the number of ways a user can interact with it. To this, add differing program models (WordPerfect used a XML-like DOM model for storing data, Word used a Run-based model where blocks of text were tagged with attributes (this was why Reveal Codes took so long to implement in Word)).
Do you have any idea WHY these file formats were so complex and MSOffice uses a run based format? Hint: It has nothing to do with the data being stored.
The answer is that those complex formats were an attempt to record edits directly to the file without rewriting the entire document. In the olden days, this made a lot of sense as computers weren't very fast. Unfortunately, this also made Office documents very complex as they became miniture file systems unto themselves.
All of that goes away when you move to an XML file stored in a ZIP archive. Now you have to cleanly re-write the structure for every save, and it becomes a matter of supporting the necessary features. It wouldn't surprise me if the new MSOffice still loads the new format into an old-style MSOffice temp file, but that doesn't place any restrictions on the XML output format.
I'd say using a interoperable native format is better than developing a watered down, common-denominator format.
You're right. Instead of ASCII/Unicode encoding, we should go back to per-computer text encodings! Not just EBCDIC, we don't need standards! Proprietary formats are better! I'll go create my own right now that scatters the english alphabet all over the 8 bit address space! All in the name of making a "not watered down" format! I'll be rich, rich I tell you! (rolls eyes)
The world runs on standards. You probably don't even think about the fact that your paper towel always fits the holder, or that your appliances always fits through the door, or that your car takes gas from any gas station. These sorts of non-issues we take for granted exist as major barriers in countries that don't participate in standards such as China. (I'm sure there's a "standards evading is communist" joke in there somewhere.) Attempting to evade standards only hurts everyone.
Because OASIS is one specification which might be completely and utterly incompatible with the way Office lays things out, and would require a significant investment to change to it?
Bullocks. We're talking about a file format for a word processor and a spreadsheet. If OOo and MSOffice can interchange formats today (not to mention all the extra "export" formats that MSOffice handles) then there's no reason why they can't follow the OASIS spec. The worst case is that MSOFfice adds a few features for some of the more esoteric functionality.
Besides, there wouldn't be *any* problem if Microsoft had joined the OASIS working group in the first place, now would there?
Actually, that's not a bad point. What's to stop Microsoft from implanting things like VBScriptlets that are required for the document to render? That would put a real cramp in the competitors' ability to read the format, regardless of how "Open" it is.
Also, "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is a little overreaching, don't you think?
That's exactly what I was thinking. If Microsoft was really opening up Office, why didn't they go for the OASIS Spec? Me thinks that this is an attempt by Microsoft to lead the industry around by the nose, thus solidifying their place as "Industry Leader". And with a proprietary document format, they can make minor, but frustrating, changes every version just to keep the competition on its toes.
Wait. I think I did it. I misunderstood your post, didn't I? Sorry about that. With so many people (willfully?) misunderstanding my posts, I'm heavily on the defensive. Sorry about that.
Okkkaaaayyy... so what does ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A GUY CALLING SLASHDOT A BUNCH OF GOOGLE COCK SUCKERS? I asked that he be modded down and he was. AS I SAID (time and fucking time again), THIS IS REAL AND IMPORTANT NEWS. So will everyone (yourself included) stop being an asshole and PAY FUCKING ATTENTION!
Let me put it this way: People won't be very afraid after the terrorists fail to kill anyone after the second or third attempt. People will actually be laughing at the stupidity of the terrorists. And the media will, of course, blame the entire scare mongering on the government instead of their own inability to check the facts.
Terrorists aren't always the brightest (e.g. the attack on the USS Sullivans), but they aren't that stupid. If they have anyone with enough knowledge to make a dirty bomb, they have someone with enough knowledge to tell them why it won't work. (And trust me, countless governments from Hitler on up have explored the idea.)
The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume two things:
1. That no competitors will enter the market.
2. That people will pay anything for nuclear batteries.
The first is dubious at best. It's far more likely that such a cash cow would be embraced by multiple manufacturers, even if they have to develop different technology.
The second is just outright wrong. I seriously doubt that anyone would put up with being gouged for a nuclear battery when they can just as easily use a rechargable. Competition exists in the battery market already. Nuclear batteries would have to be competitive with that market. They can't just assume that everyone wants one enough to pay out as much as their car.
Thereby making it trivial for anyone with Wal-Mart access to put together a "dirty bomb"?
Repeat after me: Dirty bombs don't work. They are a media scare and nothing else. Campaigns of FUD are designed to fool idiots into believing that everything they read in comic books is true.
Good. Now go here, read, and understand.