According to the article, the Windows version of 2.0 has been rewritten as a native Windows application. To the extent that this implies new code, the security issues of Apache 2.0 for Windows are not yet known.
"GPL software represents some of their strongest competition, so a "punishment" that does not help GPL developers is not a punishment at all."
Then by your definition, MS is unlikely to get punished. The free software community didn't have the resources to buy their way into the process the way Sun and AOL have, so their concerns are unlikely to be addressed.
The interests of the free software movement would be better served if all those eyes that are looking at code were instead hands reaching into wallets to pay for lobbying.
"Do you have any idea what it was like BEFORE they broke up AT&T?"
You didn't get calls in the evening asking you if you wanted to change your long distance provider. You didn't have to listen to endless ads on TV for long distance companies. Cheaper local calls. Not all of the changes resulting from the break-up of AT&T were positive.
Re:It's plenty early enough to form first impressi
on
Trouble Ahead for Java
·
· Score: 1
"Again, you seem to be rather missing the point: When XML hit the scene INSTANTLY a very large percentage of ads added "XML" in the buzzword "nice to have" listing."
Again, you should read your original post I responded to, it said nothing about XML.
Re:It's plenty early enough to form first impressi
on
Trouble Ahead for Java
·
· Score: 1
".. local job listings show Java leading C# job lists approximately 50:1.."
Well, they were supporting Apple long before they had any legal problems. I assume that they were making a profit then, why should it be different now?
By the way where's the link and/or supporting evidence that MS is continuing their support only to avoid legal problems?
"However, even more importantly is that the job market is tied to the "future" buzzwords that the CTOs/CIOs get sold on (i.e. A couple of years ago XML was all the rage, and every job posting asked for 7 years of XML experience:"
There's some truth in what you say, but you exaggerate. Many ads are looking for people with the skills that match what a company is using now. If that were not the case, you wouldn't have found any Java ads at all since Java is not a "future" buzzword.
Re:It's plenty early enough to form first impressi
on
Trouble Ahead for Java
·
· Score: 1
Keep in mind the context of my post. The claim I responded to was that C# was not going to be successful because there were many more job advertisements for Java than C#. Very few companies are going to require knowledge in a language that only exists in beta. I'm not claiming that C# is going to replace Java or C++, I'm just saying that the evidence he presented is unconvincing and a poor predictor of the success or failure of C# in the long run.
"Despite it being the future, local job listings show Java leading C# job lists approximately 50:1, and of those few C# listings, most all have it as "one of many laundry list nice-to-have languages". "
And what was the ratio of C++ to Java listings one month after Java's official release? It's way too early to evaluate how the market will treat C#.
"Taking away choice because a wrong choice can cause an inconvenience is foolish."
Well, it obviously depends on how important choice is to the customer vs how much inconvenience it causes him. I think the majority of Windows customers are more interested in the convenience of running legacy apps than the ability to remove IE. Then again, I don't think the interests of most Windows customers are of much importance to the dissenting states.
I'm done with this thread, you can have the last word.
"However, as such programs as 98Lite [98lite.net] show, you take the IE out of windows and still leave the ability to render html, by leaving the html rendering dlls registered and on the machine."
Of course the court may decide that these dlls are part of IE and have to be removed.
Well, that's great for you, but for those who have written an application that depends on components to be present, it's a mess. I guess you have to tell your customers that your application won't run on Windows DSE (Dissenting States Edition). Even if the DSE has the option of installing the components you need, there's no guarantee that your customer can locate the CD when you figure out what's missing. It's going to cause a lot of problems for customers and vendors.
"Princeton University professor Andrew Appel said in written testimony that modular design is an accepted standard in the industry"
Of course, he was referring to his own industry -higher education.
Seriously, just about anyone reading slashdot is as qualified to make these general statements as he is. I thought MS was supposed to turn over source code to determine the feasibility of removing IE. Why don't they have someone read it instead of quoting from the Programming 101 textbook?
There's a difference between what MS should or could of done and what they did. There are a lot of 3rd party applications that rely on components that come with IE that would break if they aren't there. So the question is which components will the court allow to be included (assuming they want IE removed). Again, we don't know the answer so we can't say what the impact will be.
Going after "easy" customers first is a basic principle of doing business. It does Red Hat little good if the overall Unix market share is higher in the future if they're not around to enjoy it. They are a public company and have a legal responsibility to make a profit for their shareholders. They have no legal responsibility to the greater good of Unix.
"I'm not talking about rewriting the HTML renderer natively, I'm talking about taking such a renderer out completely... I'd have no problem if they decided to re-implement all the fluff natively if I would be able to save a few megabytes"
These statements look contradictory to me. Do you think the court should allow HTML rendering in Windows or not?
"Still I think it is wrong to focus on the 'easy' targets; in the end it does not help Linux (including Redhat) if UNIX as a whole (including Linux) looses marketshare."
Well, it depends if Red Hat's goal is to make money or to hurt MS. It looks like they went with the former. Besides, substituting Linux for Unix doesn't shrink the Unix camp market share. There could be more dire consequences in the future for the Unix camp (or not), but a company can't sacrifice the present for the distant future and stay in business.
"Even in the most stringent definition(Internet Explorer including MSHTML.DLL and the like), it's just a matter of deleting the files and removing the references in the registry, and closing the holes left in other DLL files(if there even are any) with native code."
But "closing the holes... with native code" could be interpreted by the court as adding back some of the IE functionality. If that's permitted, why couldn't MS get away with adding back all of the IE functionality as native code?
"Head to 98lite.net and you'll find out that they were lying all along."
Actually, the courts haven't come up with a single consistent definition of what exactly makes up IE from a legal perspective, so we can't determine if MS is incorrect. If the court orders MS to remove IE then the court will have to come up with a detailed definition. It's quite possible that 98lite won't meet that definition. In any case, very few people will be buying Windows 98 in the future.
Re:Where do they recommend to use 2.0 over 1.3.24?
on
Apache 2.0 Goes Gold!
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the corrected reference.
Re:Where do they recommend to use 2.0 over 1.3.24?
on
Apache 2.0 Goes Gold!
·
· Score: 1
I followed your link and I didn't find any text that recommends the use of 2.0 over 1.3.24.
"This is in response to the general state of paranoia that has ensued since 9/11, with 'cybersecurity' as a high priority."
Yeah, there seems to be no end to the proposals the government has come up with since 9/11. The only problem is, none of them would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. It's a bit like shutting the barn door after your car has been stolen from the garage.
Slashdot Mirror
"Um... those are results of the reunification of AT&T"
Reunification can only happen if something has been split, so what's your point?
According to the article, the Windows version of 2.0 has been rewritten as a native Windows application. To the extent that this implies new code, the security issues of Apache 2.0 for Windows are not yet known.
"GPL software represents some of their strongest competition, so a "punishment" that does not help GPL developers is not a punishment at all."
Then by your definition, MS is unlikely to get punished. The free software community didn't have the resources to buy their way into the process the way Sun and AOL have, so their concerns are unlikely to be addressed.
The interests of the free software movement would be better served if all those eyes that are looking at code were instead hands reaching into wallets to pay for lobbying.
"Do you have any idea what it was like BEFORE they broke up AT&T?"
You didn't get calls in the evening asking you if you wanted to change your long distance provider. You didn't have to listen to endless ads on TV for long distance companies. Cheaper local calls. Not all of the changes resulting from the break-up of AT&T were positive.
"It's conjecture."
Exactly.
"Again, you seem to be rather missing the point: When XML hit the scene INSTANTLY a very large percentage of ads added "XML" in the buzzword "nice to have" listing."
Again, you should read your original post I responded to, it said nothing about XML.
".. local job listings show Java leading C# job lists approximately 50:1 .."
Do you read your own posts?
Well, they were supporting Apple long before they had any legal problems. I assume that they were making a profit then, why should it be different now?
By the way where's the link and/or supporting evidence that MS is continuing their support only to avoid legal problems?
"However, even more importantly is that the job market is tied to the "future" buzzwords that the CTOs/CIOs get sold on (i.e. A couple of years ago XML was all the rage, and every job posting asked for 7 years of XML experience:"
There's some truth in what you say, but you exaggerate. Many ads are looking for people with the skills that match what a company is using now. If that were not the case, you wouldn't have found any Java ads at all since Java is not a "future" buzzword.
Keep in mind the context of my post. The claim I responded to was that C# was not going to be successful because there were many more job advertisements for Java than C#. Very few companies are going to require knowledge in a language that only exists in beta. I'm not claiming that C# is going to replace Java or C++, I'm just saying that the evidence he presented is unconvincing and a poor predictor of the success or failure of C# in the long run.
"Despite it being the future, local job listings show Java leading C# job lists approximately 50:1, and of those few C# listings, most all have it as "one of many laundry list nice-to-have languages". "
And what was the ratio of C++ to Java listings one month after Java's official release? It's way too early to evaluate how the market will treat C#.
"Taking away choice because a wrong choice can cause an inconvenience is foolish."
Well, it obviously depends on how important choice is to the customer vs how much inconvenience it causes him. I think the majority of Windows customers are more interested in the convenience of running legacy apps than the ability to remove IE. Then again, I don't think the interests of most Windows customers are of much importance to the dissenting states.
I'm done with this thread, you can have the last word.
"However, as such programs as 98Lite [98lite.net] show, you take the IE out of windows and still leave the ability to render html, by leaving the html rendering dlls registered and on the machine."
Of course the court may decide that these dlls are part of IE and have to be removed.
Well, that's great for you, but for those who have written an application that depends on components to be present, it's a mess. I guess you have to tell your customers that your application won't run on Windows DSE (Dissenting States Edition). Even if the DSE has the option of installing the components you need, there's no guarantee that your customer can locate the CD when you figure out what's missing. It's going to cause a lot of problems for customers and vendors.
"Princeton University professor Andrew Appel said in written testimony that modular design is an accepted standard in the industry"
Of course, he was referring to his own industry -higher education.
Seriously, just about anyone reading slashdot is as qualified to make these general statements as he is. I thought MS was supposed to turn over source code to determine the feasibility of removing IE. Why don't they have someone read it instead of quoting from the Programming 101 textbook?
There's a difference between what MS should or could of done and what they did. There are a lot of 3rd party applications that rely on components that come with IE that would break if they aren't there. So the question is which components will the court allow to be included (assuming they want IE removed). Again, we don't know the answer so we can't say what the impact will be.
Going after "easy" customers first is a basic principle of doing business. It does Red Hat little good if the overall Unix market share is higher in the future if they're not around to enjoy it. They are a public company and have a legal responsibility to make a profit for their shareholders. They have no legal responsibility to the greater good of Unix.
"I'm not talking about rewriting the HTML renderer natively, I'm talking about taking such a renderer out completely ... I'd have no problem if they decided to re-implement all the fluff natively if I would be able to save a few megabytes"
These statements look contradictory to me. Do you think the court should allow HTML rendering in Windows or not?
"Still I think it is wrong to focus on the 'easy' targets; in the end it does not help Linux (including Redhat) if UNIX as a whole (including Linux) looses marketshare."
Well, it depends if Red Hat's goal is to make money or to hurt MS. It looks like they went with the former. Besides, substituting Linux for Unix doesn't shrink the Unix camp market share. There could be more dire consequences in the future for the Unix camp (or not), but a company can't sacrifice the present for the distant future and stay in business.
"Even in the most stringent definition(Internet Explorer including MSHTML.DLL and the like), it's just a matter of deleting the files and removing the references in the registry, and closing the holes left in other DLL files(if there even are any) with native code."
... with native code" could be interpreted by the court as adding back some of the IE functionality. If that's permitted, why couldn't MS get away with adding back all of the IE functionality as native code?
But "closing the holes
"Head to 98lite.net and you'll find out that they were lying all along."
Actually, the courts haven't come up with a single consistent definition of what exactly makes up IE from a legal perspective, so we can't determine if MS is incorrect. If the court orders MS to remove IE then the court will have to come up with a detailed definition. It's quite possible that 98lite won't meet that definition. In any case, very few people will be buying Windows 98 in the future.
Thanks for the corrected reference.
I followed your link and I didn't find any text that recommends the use of 2.0 over 1.3.24.
Isn't this a bit like asking what the Open Source Community's Proprietary Software Strategy should be?
"This is in response to the general state of paranoia that has ensued since 9/11, with 'cybersecurity' as a high priority."
Yeah, there seems to be no end to the proposals the government has come up with since 9/11. The only problem is, none of them would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. It's a bit like shutting the barn door after your car has been stolen from the garage.