I didn't realize you were the same guy (posting as AC to support your own position is bad form by the way).
The problem with your analysis is that your statement 1 was presented to support the claim that IBM was a FOSS-centric company, but it really can't do that unless you really intended to make a statement like # 2 instead. So I agree that statement #1 doesn't support the argument that either IBM or MS is a FOSS-centric company.
So we're back to my previous argument that IBM's actions are not consistent with a company who bet its future on FOSS.
I didn't say I had a problem with it either. I just offer it as evidence that IBM thinks their non-FOSS work is more important than you think it is. Buying a company and then taking some of the legacy products out of the marketplace is not an action taken by a company that is betting its future on FOSS. A true FOSS-centric company would release the source code for the legacy product rather than turning away companies who wish to buy a license for it.
What's this obsession with readers? Are all the documents we'll ever need already written? Or are these applications actually PDF-compatbile word processors?
It's not an absoulte thing, but it's helpful to get beyond that particular nerd subculture that uses "words" like "n00b" in order to understand ordinary users.
I think the percentage of IBM's profit related to FOSS is greatly exaggerated. The "service" IBM provides includes some of it own proprietary software and even in the last 5 years IBM has taken steps to protect it's proprietary software. They also sued Amazon over patents last year and that had nothing to do with being a "service" company.
As a practical matter it's clear that software is apparently equally patentable as hardware. If you look closely you can find as much BS in hardware patents as software ones. As far as I'm concerned, you can throw them all out. Until that happens, if ever, everybody has to play by the same rules.
I agree that the situation in Iraq is a different situation, but my point is that as recently as the last presidential election, nearly 1/2 of the voters believed that Iraq was related to terrorist attacks.
Sure, if you're an Apple fan-boy, you want to say it's all about "goodness" and "integrity". It's OK, Apple's marketing doesn't have to be bad for Apple products to be good.
I still remember when the Mac was first released. Apple had about 20 pages of slick advertisements in a single issue of Newsweek. It remains one of the most impressive roll-outs ever.
"While I will admit IBM stands to lose if software patents are invalidated in general, I think you are forgetting something; IBM is a serious innovator in the hardware arena. They spend a boatload of money every year advancing their hardware research and a non-trivial number of patents they receive are for their hardware advancements."
I suspect that IBM is smart enough to realize that banning any kind of patents puts potentially all patents at risk. In any case, IBM has plenty of software patents as well as hardware ones.
IBM sued Amazon for violating 2 IBM patents in October of last year. Since IBM claims that there are already others who have purchased a license for these patents, the motivation for suing Amazon can't be any "patent rattling" on Amzon's part. Like every other company, IBM patents exist to further the profitablity of the company, nothing more.
"It's a common opinion that microsoft is an excellent marketing firm with a lousy software development side-project."
We can debate the quality of MS software, but it's pretty clear that IBM's, Apple's (Jobs) and Sun's marketing has always been better. After all, Jobs convinced the press that Next was a start-up even after 2 or 3 years of operation and Sun convinced the press that they had created a new language that for the first time allowed programms written in that language to "run on any OS". Not to mention IBM who convinced people to pay them to combine a lot of free software written by other people.
"Imagine if all over the world tonight, young people decided to take colored chalk in hand and write "MS: Put Up or Shut Up!" on sidewalks from Munich through Paris and London, to Tokyo and on around to SF, LA, Austin, NY, etc..."
People would look down at the sidewalk and think there's a grass-root movement to support the fight against MS (Multiple Sclerosis)?
"Linus Torvals demands to see proof of Linux patent violations."
If there are patent violations it would be rather easy to come up with proof since Linux source code is all readily available. This isn't about copyright, so no MS source code has to be presented to prove the violation.
"All of Europe calls for a ban on Software Patents, again." "IBM claims Windows violates 15,302 IBM Patents, demands reasonable fee of $1 per patent per copy of Windows sold."
IBM has far more to lose if software patents were banned that MS does. If IBM really had a big patent case against MS they would have pursued it long before this. If you think they're going to throw out their normal business sense and sue MS just to "save" FOSS you're very naive. Due to the long association between MS and IBM, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the patents both companies have are covered by cross-licensing agreements that would make it impossible for them to sue each other.
I think you just jumped to a conclusion about what I was trying to say. In reality, there is no "American society's reaction" or "UK reaction", but rather individual reactions. In the case of the US, you don't need to look any further than the Iraq war to see that there is no consensus reaction to terrorism here.
Which experts are you referring to? I think you'd have a hard time finding any unbiased experts willing to bless any OS in wide use today as a model for optimal architecture and design.
It's precisely because Windows was originally kludged from DOS that made it so popular. Likewise, it's the quaint 1970's "small is beautiful" philosophy preserved for backwards compatibility that makes Unix and its clones so popular.
If Linus had set out to make the best original OS following all the best practices of the day without worrying about it running Unix applications, we would never have heard of him.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't realize you were the same guy (posting as AC to support your own position is bad form by the way).
The problem with your analysis is that your statement 1 was presented to support the claim that IBM was a FOSS-centric company, but it really can't do that unless you really intended to make a statement like # 2 instead. So I agree that statement #1 doesn't support the argument that either IBM or MS is a FOSS-centric company.
So we're back to my previous argument that IBM's actions are not consistent with a company who bet its future on FOSS.
I agree that "Every X is Y" doesn't imply "every Y is X". Please explain how you think this applies to the current discussion.
Well, we have different opinions. If a company who "chooses carefully what is worth open sourcing" is FOSS-centric than even MS could claim it was.
I didn't say I had a problem with it either. I just offer it as evidence that IBM thinks their non-FOSS work is more important than you think it is. Buying a company and then taking some of the legacy products out of the marketplace is not an action taken by a company that is betting its future on FOSS. A true FOSS-centric company would release the source code for the legacy product rather than turning away companies who wish to buy a license for it.
What's this obsession with readers? Are all the documents we'll ever need already written? Or are these applications actually PDF-compatbile word processors?
It's not an absoulte thing, but it's helpful to get beyond that particular nerd subculture that uses "words" like "n00b" in order to understand ordinary users.
I think the percentage of IBM's profit related to FOSS is greatly exaggerated. The "service" IBM provides includes some of it own proprietary software and even in the last 5 years IBM has taken steps to protect it's proprietary software. They also sued Amazon over patents last year and that had nothing to do with being a "service" company.
As a practical matter it's clear that software is apparently equally patentable as hardware. If you look closely you can find as much BS in hardware patents as software ones. As far as I'm concerned, you can throw them all out. Until that happens, if ever, everybody has to play by the same rules.
IBM is a lot smarter than Sun in this regard. They're not interested in revenge, just profit.
I agree that the situation in Iraq is a different situation, but my point is that as recently as the last presidential election, nearly 1/2 of the voters believed that Iraq was related to terrorist attacks.
Sure, if you're an Apple fan-boy, you want to say it's all about "goodness" and "integrity". It's OK, Apple's marketing doesn't have to be bad for Apple products to be good.
I still remember when the Mac was first released. Apple had about 20 pages of slick advertisements in a single issue of Newsweek. It remains one of the most impressive roll-outs ever.
SCO's case is about copyright and MS's (should they sue anybody) will be about patents. Yes, they're both in the IP category, but legally unrelated.
"While I will admit IBM stands to lose if software patents are invalidated in general, I think you are forgetting something; IBM is a serious innovator in the hardware arena. They spend a boatload of money every year advancing their hardware research and a non-trivial number of patents they receive are for their hardware advancements."
I suspect that IBM is smart enough to realize that banning any kind of patents puts potentially all patents at risk. In any case, IBM has plenty of software patents as well as hardware ones.
No. Just ask Amazon.
I would say that anyone who refers to a user as a n00b still isn't ready to evaluate the effectiveness of software for a typical user.
MS's source code would be irrelevant to a patent case, so your dream isn't going to come true.
IBM sued Amazon for violating 2 IBM patents in October of last year. Since IBM claims that there are already others who have purchased a license for these patents, the motivation for suing Amazon can't be any "patent rattling" on Amzon's part. Like every other company, IBM patents exist to further the profitablity of the company, nothing more.
"It's a common opinion that microsoft is an excellent marketing firm with a lousy software development side-project."
We can debate the quality of MS software, but it's pretty clear that IBM's, Apple's (Jobs) and Sun's marketing has always been better. After all, Jobs convinced the press that Next was a start-up even after 2 or 3 years of operation and Sun convinced the press that they had created a new language that for the first time allowed programms written in that language to "run on any OS". Not to mention IBM who convinced people to pay them to combine a lot of free software written by other people.
"Imagine if all over the world tonight, young people decided to take colored chalk in hand and write "MS: Put Up or Shut Up!" on sidewalks from Munich through Paris and London, to Tokyo and on around to SF, LA, Austin, NY, etc..."
People would look down at the sidewalk and think there's a grass-root movement to support the fight against MS (Multiple Sclerosis)?
If SCO fails (as expected), it will because it doesn't have a case, not because of "adversarial behavior".
SCO's case has nothing to do with patents, so their expected loss says nothing about a potential MS patent case.
"Linus Torvals demands to see proof of Linux patent violations."
If there are patent violations it would be rather easy to come up with proof since Linux source code is all readily available. This isn't about copyright, so no MS source code has to be presented to prove the violation.
"All of Europe calls for a ban on Software Patents, again." "IBM claims Windows violates 15,302 IBM Patents, demands reasonable fee of $1 per patent per copy of Windows sold."
IBM has far more to lose if software patents were banned that MS does. If IBM really had a big patent case against MS they would have pursued it long before this. If you think they're going to throw out their normal business sense and sue MS just to "save" FOSS you're very naive. Due to the long association between MS and IBM, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the patents both companies have are covered by cross-licensing agreements that would make it impossible for them to sue each other.
I think you just jumped to a conclusion about what I was trying to say. In reality, there is no "American society's reaction" or "UK reaction", but rather individual reactions. In the case of the US, you don't need to look any further than the Iraq war to see that there is no consensus reaction to terrorism here.
"Ask why AT&T don't have a cult following. Ask that about any monopoly"
I don't know: millions of people paying good money to mumble into your orifice sounds kind of culty to me.
Which experts are you referring to? I think you'd have a hard time finding any unbiased experts willing to bless any OS in wide use today as a model for optimal architecture and design.
It's precisely because Windows was originally kludged from DOS that made it so popular. Likewise, it's the quaint 1970's "small is beautiful" philosophy preserved for backwards compatibility that makes Unix and its clones so popular.
If Linus had set out to make the best original OS following all the best practices of the day without worrying about it running Unix applications, we would never have heard of him.
I had no way of knowing where you came from and I didn't lecture you. I was merely trying to express an understanding of your position.
I'm sorry that you saw less than 10% of the material but that doesn't mean I'm going to limit the discussion to that 10%.